15/10/01 23/09/02


The attack on New York is a mere philosophical discussion.

 ١   • A lesson in faith
٢   • Petty Mr Revel
٣   • In the meantime, the screwist is puzzled
٤   • Two hilarious adverts
٥   • Summary
٦   • A strategist from Attac
٧   • Irony aside, this is why even the Chinese understand
٨   • One can understand a poor man dreaming of becoming a billionaire
٩   • The first amendment of the American constitution is an admirable thing
ی   • Americans live in the smallest country there is
١ی  • Much to everyone's amazement, bin Laden declared this world evil
٢ی  • So I was saying
٣ی  • Moral of the story
٤ی  • I am indebted to bin Laden
٥ی  • Summary, again
٦ی  • Conclusion
٧ی  • Notes


Utilitarianism is a form of nihilism
Money-grubbing is a form of nihilism

The fanatical Arabs who bombed New York necessarily had serious (and most of all powerful) motives.
Bombing New York is neither done casually, nor for entertainment or the sake of doing harm.
You just need to take a look at a photograph of Kuwait City to understand the wrath of an Arab.
It makes you feel like bombing.

That's the result of two centuries of money-grubbing.
That's why Balzac was a monarchist and Stendahl an aristocrat even though America already had the two Chambers.

I have now made up my mind. The proposition « the economy exists » is nonsense (reference to a discussion going on on my website : Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). It is nonsense to speak of the economy as it is constantly done in the box and in the newspapers; and it is nonsense with an ulterior motive. Ask yourself who benefits from the crime. It is nonsense to assert, as does the complacent bourgeois Revel, that people live to eat, though they do occasionally eat and most of them even occasionally do not. It is sheer nihilism. Utilitarianism is the denial of all faith. Utilitarianism is a form of nihilism. It is thus hardly surprising that it worships the economy, i.e. nothing, no thing according to the etymology. Even animals don't live that way. Fanatical Arabs live for their faith and prove it with their death, even if they indulge in the occasional beer before committing suicide (and generously offering many biers). They are a denial of utilitarianism, a denial of nihilism. They prove that, in this world of nihilism and married queers, some men are still capable of dying for their faith. That is what potlatch is. That is finally what the most straightforward surrealistic deed is. That is the return of Dada, it is Vaché's suicide to the power of twelve and a half (for the number) and Rigaut's (for the precision). Besides it is diminishing it to label it as surrealistic and it is insulting it to attribute to it artists' pretension and self-centredness. It is an act of faith directed at Manchesterian rationality, which is the complete absence of rationality and meaning, i.e. sheer nihilism. What can be more simple and obvious than fervent believers wanting to annihilate bourgeois nihilism? This nihilism attracts faith like the conductor attracts lightning. As always one must distinguish the act from its intentions, goals and phraseology. In this world people's acts always go beyond their intentions. Whatever the goals pursued by bin Laden, this act goes beyond these goals and his rhetoric. It is a surreal act insofar as it proves the complete unreality of the Manchesterian world which can collapse like a house of cards. Just the way we say « smoke that, it's the good stuff », the Arabs said in their brutal fashion « smoke that, it's the real stuff. » It is a lesson in reality. In the entire history of philosophy, such a lesson in reality, such a lesson in meaning, such a lesson in anti-nihilism was never taught. Far from a lesson in darkness, it is a lesson in the unthinkable : people are still capable of dying for their faith while nihilists, as can be expected, risk their life over nothing: they go bungee-jumping. It is a clear lesson: that's enough waffling, enough futility, enough Nobel Prizes, enough scooters, enough citizen deeds, enough married queers

— queers of Labiche will finally be able to cuckold each other, like everyone else ! Can you imagine the three hundred Theban hoplites of the holy battalion married with each other? Bouvard marries Pécuchet. With the rise of crime, will we have to get policemen to marry each other? —

enough international bitch's day, enough Homais and Hommasse. Madame Bovary gets her revenge. Such a world, with its beaming Messiers, must perish. This time has come for enchantment. It is philosophy hammered in with a rock and a hard place. In the United States too, there are people who suffer from bourgeois nihilism, there are people who think. They will know what to make of that lesson. Not all of the United States is roller skating and bungee-jumping. Bush's worst enemies are within the United States (besides, that is the opinion of the famous anti-Semitic revisionist Chomsky)

— evidence for it was New York's firemen refusal of the politically correct statue that was to be erected in their honour. They asked for history to be respected and refused its forgery by political correctness, i.e. puritan hypocrisy : three whites hoisting the flag were on the picture the sculptor drew inspiration from, so three whites should have been on the statue whereas the artist had taken the liberty of putting one black, one Latino and one white. The jury is still out on this. (le Figaro, January 31) — 

and he will not be warned by his secret services since these dirty brats had rather have fun in Washington with their groovy game consoles to murder three Afghan farmers from twenty thousand kilometres away.(Le Figaro, February 12). « Life is short, play more », good old Bill Microsoft ! Henceforth the life of any man over six feet is at risk throughout the world. It is extremely urgent to ban the production and sale of Play Stations. It inevitably reminds of the assassination of Alcibiades who, coming out of his torched house, naked and armed with a mere dagger, was yet so dreaded that his assassins dared not confront him and killed him from afar, with arrows and javelins. Only faith is real. Only meaning is real. Only the meaningful is real, only reality is meaningful. In this totally meaningless Manchesterian world (all the meaning has taken refuge in money and only money is real) words are also meaningless. We hear blah blah all day long on the radio. That is why the Arabs had to let the aviation fuel do the talking (they know about fuel and oil as much as Bush the oilman does. After the Pétroleuses, we have the Pétroleurs. At least the latter didn't miss the Pantheon.) and that is why American intelligence failed to take bin Laden's perfectly explicit words into account. Blah blah, as usual, the chatterboxes thought. Denying the meaning leads to denying life. Manchester* was back, more handsome than ever. Manchester is not a man. Still Gottfried Wilhelm Bush said it : Manchester is the best possible world and everything is for the best. It is not only the proposition: « the economy exists » that is nonsense, it is the world of Manchester (laissez-faire, if I catch I'll screw you, call on your butcher's selfishness, and of course « Pompidou des sous » (« give us money, Pompidou »)) that is nonsense, i.e., a meaningless world, which everyone painfully feels every day. Only reality is meaningful, and only the meaningful is real. A meaningless world is a world deprived of reality as everyone can experience in their life. But the malice of Manchester has found a worthy opponent. Since the fall of the famous Berlin wall, since queers were getting married, Manchesterians had never had it so good. Monkey Minc was waving his four little hands. Did they think it would last forever? No. Bin Laden and the nineteen believers were on the lookout, bin Laden, one of them, bin Laden, one of their condottieri, bin Laden the graduate, bin Laden the entrepreneur, bin Laden the billionaire, bin Laden who gambles on the stock market the day before the attacks he finances. There is always someone more Manchesterian than you. What happened was bound to happen and will happen again. Malice begets malice. There is always someone more malicious than you. Bin Laden has punished this crime of nonsense, this crime of nihilism.. Bin Laden has hit New Manchester. Bin Laden resents the infidel (the faithless) New Manchester and its towers stuffed with Youpis®. (Young Urban Professionals, the Anglo-Saxon « Yuppies », let's speak French, dash it ! We are in Céline's country.) Queers have faith in wedding. Youpis® trust no one. Youpis® only have faith in money. They have faith in the Writings... on Wall Street. Contrary to the citizen cattle which only thinks of its little self and of the rights of its little self

— what is improperly called individualism but is actually sheer nihilism. Greek individualism produced Clisthenes, Pericles, Alicibiades and even Brasidas, i.e. individuals, not herds of conformists. Never was the so-called individual supposedly individualist so free to obey, never was the so-called individual so free to submit, never was the so-called individual so free to conform, never was he so free to choose between submission and... submission. The master is at his balcony. He throws his tarboosh onto the yard. The slaves protest. It's against human rights. —

contrary to queers who get married, the individual bin Laden (as the humanists of the police put it) only cares about universal matters, he is not concerned with his own existence, and thus not with others' existence. Unlike bourgeois nihilists he believes in God, i.e. in humanity . He does not despair of humanity. He has faith in it, in an admittedly brutal fashion but not more brutal, and most of all without deceitfulness or proxy, than the brutality of the United States convicted in the International Court in The Hague of illegal use of force in Nicaragua, just like in hundred other places where they instigated people to act on their behalf (some people! Real proconsuls and praetors devastating their provinces, hordes of Verrès) and were never convicted (on this issue refer to the well-known anti-Semitic negationist Noam Chomsky, 9-11.) The proxy terrorism perpetrated by the United States, the only hyperterrorism at all, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless ravages and atrocities. Some money-grubbers indeed [ « The round face of the grubman peered upon me now. » Bartleby, Melville. In french : marchand de soupe. Note of the author ]. The tables are turned, aren't they?

*. Manchesterianism, free trade movement in the first half of the nineteenth century. Advocates of this movement created the Anti Corn Law League, located in Manchester, its leading spokesmen were Cobden and Bright. The Law was repealed in 1846, following Ricardo's theory (An Essay on the Influence of a low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock, 1815 ; Essai sur l'influence du bas prix du blé sur les profits du capital, 1817). For profits to grow, wages must fall; those depend on the price of the staple products of workers and their family. This means the price of staple products, including corn, need to fall. Thank you Edouard Leclerc, a bleeding heart pretending to defend consumers. « merci patron, merci patron » (« Thank you boss, thank you boss »), the Charlots sang. The different laws identified by Ricardo are altogether something else than Engel's stupid and ridiculous law put forward by the deceitful idiot (reference to a discussion going on on my website : Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). The free trade era began under favourable auspices: within a few years one and a half million Irish people starved to death. Two and a half went in exile. Perhaps some of their descendants were in the towers bombed by bin Laden. Repealing the Corn Law was inter alia meant to eradicate poverty. Yeah right. That is laissez-faire at works. London did nothing about it, at least that meant fewer of those annoying poor people to put up with. (Having said that, free trade was not responsible for this massacre, it was the English domination which brought about the dispossession of Catholics, single farming of potato for those dirty poor people, and years of potato blight epidemic. Oh, Lord! What's six thousand vanished Youpis® compared to that ?) Until today the free trade era has continued almost uninterrupted apart from brief protectionist spells, the longest of which was the result of the threat of so-called Soviets. It is now in terminal phase, i.e. in the phase of free circulation of capitals. I obviously agree with Marx on this. The sooner it is completed, thanks to Monkey Minc's judicious advice, the better as it will give us the opportunity to see if free trade delivers on its fabulous promises. Alas, the so-called citizens of Attac see to it that it takes a few more centuries (The economy at the service of the people ! What a nice slogan that reminds of the one on the front porch of Portuguese banks in 1975: The banks at the service of the people. That's all well and good. Crooks and fools.) Like Proudhon, when it comes to capitalism, they want to have their cake and eat it. And they are volunteers while American think-tankers are handsomely paid. They are like those Maoist leftists who found Russia and China very hospitable until they heard of the camps in those countries ; they needed that so-called globalisation to see the true colours of capitalism, once hidden by the cold war. Back then, Manchester had to keep its nose clean and try to look good because of competition! Those were the days, back in general De Gaulle's time. But now we are back in the forties, the 1840s, so nothing new. Free trade is neither freedom nor democracy, it is simply the freedom of trade. Owing to the threat of the so-called Soviets, it has always been in bed with the worst reactionary regimes in the last fifty years, which has eventually backfired on them. Bin Laden's attack can therefore be regarded as a scar from the cold war since the CIA put him in the saddle in the context of that war. And so, this much dreaded, much expected, but still totally surprising attack has eventually come true. That's the way it is with those things that look immutable. One day they come to an end. That's the way it is with apparently improbable, even unthinkable things. One day, they come true. There is always someone more reactionary than you, the skyline's the limit. That'll teach them. Best regards from Dr Mossadeq

1953, operation Ajax(1), Dr Mossadeq was illegally ousted and jailed by the Shah at the instigation of the CIA. « So this is how we will get rid of the madman Mossadeq in Iran » (he wanted to nationalise oil) John Foster Dulles declared (how good he was). In 2001, it backfires with the madman bin Laden (he wanted to bomb New York). « Jesus Christ is free trade ; free trade is Jesus Christ! » (Dr Bowring, quoted by Marx in his Speech). And Muhammad is the collapse of the Free Trade Center! —

And screw Roquefort merchants. Good old Marx, such impressive thinking, everything is put so well in few words. Free trade, free competition for traders (and today completely free circulation of capitals) and on the other hand free prostitution for the wage-earning slaves. Only trade and prostitution (which is a form of trade) are free in commercial democracy. Discours sur le libre-échange(2) (1848 in Brussels) Speech on the question of free trade. And of course, free trade for everyone but the United States which intend to remain the only protectionist country in the world. That takes the biscuit: today, with the completely free circulation of capitals, the world is solely run by capital holders, whom Marx despised so much, no longer by industrialists, whom Marx respected. Why should such a world of inflating capital survive ? Keynes was right capital holders should be euthanised.

Cobden, Richard (1804-1865) : English statesman. Economist, whose defeat of rural landowners ensured the victory of free trade ideas.

Bright J. (1811-1889) : English politician, leader of the Manchesterian or free trade party.

Unlike God's existence the existence of beliefs is no metaphysical question. Therefore it is not a matter for philosophers but for the Pentagon. If the proposition « The economy does not exist » is metaphysical, so is the proposition « The economy exists. » If the proposition « God exists » is metaphysical the proposition « God does not exist » is just as metaphysical; otherwise if the former could be refuted the latter would be proven and the other way round. The existence of religion is not a metaphysical but a practical question. Beliefs are practical forces. The belief in the existence of God is a practical force; it proves it by attacking Wall Street. It does not prove that God exists but that the belief exists as a practical force. It proves it is capable of changing the face of the world. It is reductionism that is attacked at Wall Street by the power of belief. Reductionism is a form of nihilism. Leibniz had said it: the world cannot be explained by mechanism and : neither movement nor figures can explain perception. When Marx tries to explain the world he describes a mechanism, and that is where he is wrong. The question of God's existence is a metaphysical question. The question of the belief in God's existence is a practical question, extremely practical. Let me take speak plainly, just as one cannot criticise religion while believing in God's existence, one cannot criticise economics while believing in the existence of the economy. It simply depends on the postulate. All of this is meaningful, extremely clear. In other words, you cannot aspire to watch the henhouse if you are a fox. And yet, that is what the idiot from Polytechnique Lipietz once pretended when he asked for funds to develop a non-profit sector. It is indeed tantamount to asking a fox to watch the henhouse (you might as well ask a Corsican). It is just as smart as Professor Bourdieu's blunder: in 1981, when speaking of the French government's policy towards Poland in revolt, he asserted he had entrusted that government with powers. That is the kind of talk you hear from wage-earning cattle which regards itself as a citizen as it thinks there is such thing as people's sovereignty, which could be removed from people and should therefore be protected and developed. The cattle is free to stall, and that is its only freedom! The dictator (in the Roman meaning: the Senate gives the fox full powers to restore order in the henhouse, caveant consules, to avoid any damage to the henhouse!) Bush is in a poor position to criticise terrorism since the state he heads was convicted for the same charge by the International Court in The Hague in 1986. The fox has found a shrewder fox. A vulgar and gloating but hypocritical fox is facing a shrewd and hidden but direct fox. Things are getting rough in the henhouse.


Faith : from latin fides, « trust » :
Fidem magnam habere alicui
Alicui summam omnium rerum fidem habere

La Bofetada del Moro
Dieu encule Hobbes(3) God screws Hobbes
This judgmental world is being judged

Catholics no longer call God « God » but « the Spirit » but it does not mean Catholics have stopped believing in God (reference to a discussion going on on my website : Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). Far from it, it is precisely because, today, God's existence goes without saying to them (and to atheists God's non-existence goes without saying) that the question of his existence has become secondary, has lost of its virulence (like a strain of Bacillus anthracis processed for use as a vaccine) and it is no longer necessary to refer to it. The question of God's existence has become secondary, not God's existence, which is no longer questioned. This is a pacified religion, an ecumenical religion while Puritanism and Islam have remained combat religions (as in combat gases). Until recently bombing was the privilege of puritans. Things have changed so much. There is always someone with more bombardiers and they bomb at very low altitude with surgical bombs packed with smartness. In this case it is interesting to notice that God's existence is no longer questioned at all but constantly referred to. An Afghan film maker has pointed out that Bush and bin Laden share the same philosophy, in short : « You are either with us or against us. » The non-believer is as much of a believer as the believer. The difference is: for the non-believer, believing is a private matter (though his speech and actions are inspired by the spirit of Puritanism) while for the believer believing is a matter for the state. Bin Laden and his colleagues can make use of all their qualities of statesmen for they have the necessary tool, a state vector

— I suppose Osama of Arabia intends first and foremost to free his country, not only of Americans but also of their local proconsuls, this is dictated by his religion. I suppose he did not need his religion to dictate, his patriotism was enough (another religion). Although Saddam Hussein is a non-believer he is still an Arab. Bin Laden's anger at the United States seems to have begun when they attacked Iraq. So he is firstly an Arab —

For now, (didn't the ugly albinos queer Warhol predict everyone would be infamous for fifteen minutes? New York was doomed anyway just for hosting such a scumbag. Stockhausen was right) that force is the second power in the world, i.e. the power which managed to attack the first power on its own territory, without any aircraft carrier but with a few billion dollars and the help of God, for the first time since 1812. Even if God does not exist, invoking his name can be a great help. God does not exist and still he can act. He really is almighty, he does not need to exist to act. Faith not only moves mountains, it crushes them. In fact, saying that God exists is blasphemy, existence is not worthy of Him. Existence is mundane. The Catholic religion does not survive the end of any lie. The belief has not ended, neither has religion, it is the question, the philosophy which have ended. The question of God's existence is not a religious but a philosophical matter. Catholicism survives philosophy. Then the lie is religion itself, Catholicism itself, not the belief. Saying Catholicism survives the lie is tantamount to saying Catholicism survives Catholicism. It is a lie that states « God exists » but the proposition « God exists » is no lie. A proposition is either right, wrong or meaningless. The proposition « ether exists » was never a lie. The lie of science is reductionism when it oversteps the bounds of its realm, producing a lie comparable to that of the religion. In this context the lie of religion is smaller than the lie of science ; it is proven today as the meaning of the world is still debated, more than an idea of heaven, religion is first and foremost an idea of the world

— similarly, real soviet despotism was less worse (less more not good in Novlangue, strong signal. Bin Laden's sent you a strong signal, arseholes.) than so-called commercial democracy because in that form of despotism democracy was always a question and never a so-called answer : in Russia there was no pretence of democracy and, thus, no ideology of democracy. Nobody believed the government but some people believe Bush. Ideology is like the wine drunk by the wine grower. It's plonk but he does not notice it because he drinks it every day. —

At least the spirit is allowed in religion. Believing in God is not a lie but using that belief to say slaves must accept their fate down here is one. Similarly, believing in the existence of the economy is not a lie, but using that belief to say slavery no longer exists and free trade is immutable is one.

Petty Mr Revel (another believer in progress) puts forward in Le Point, October 12: « Islamic terrorism in general stems from a fixed religious idea and not from the analysis of the true causes of poverty. It can lead to no improvement whatsoever of the plight of less advanced societies "

— what does he mean, « less advanced » ? What a complacent bourgeois. Less advanced societies are in fact the ruins of destroyed societies, (those societies lived in « material » poverty but in relational wealth, their poverty was convivial, it was no destitution, particularly not the moral destitution we witness today according to the Iranian Ranema (unsure about the spelling) who will publish a book on this in a few months at Fayard. In a world where money is the true community and the only community at all, as Marx so rightly said, there can no longer be any other community, there is total separation, what idiots call individualism : just as slavery is freedom, total separation is individualism) we all know who destroyed them, they no longer await destruction so they are advanced in this respect.-

That sums up the whole case against the morons of Attac and Politis (they think they are citizens ! Ridiculous theoretical citizens) who put down terrorism against America to growing poverty spread by capitalism as a result of the resumption of the expansion of free trade. He very easily dismisses this theory with hard figures.

— besides, who cares if incomes have doubled or risen tenfold if e.g. all subsistence farming has disappeared not to mention culture, replaced by income-demanding screwism. The supposed production of wealth is in fact the production of scarcity. Not only God is a result. So is scarcity. But the complacent bourgeois Revel does not care as long as they have food on the table, as long as they have ten dollars a day instead of eight or three. Didn't they use to eat? Well, they used to have no need for dollars at all. —

The only poverty spread by capitalism is its own, it abounds in it, it overflows with it, it is screwism : screwism is the denial of trust, even worse, the banishment of trust. Arab terrorists are not asking for bread but for meaning. Besides they are not asking for it, they have plenty, they export it, they make home deliveries. They have what screwism lacks. They have trust. Screwism is all about mistrust, i.e. nihilism, the denial of trust. This terrorism does not seek that less advanced countries also have their roller skates and roller skaters, it is meant to condemn the despicable spiritual poverty of capitalism, its despicable impiety, its despicable nihilism, and its no less despicable claim to make them benefit from it. Benefit ! This terrorism intends to judge. To judge the banishment of trust. It is a slap from the Moor. Arabia not only exports oil, it also exports synthetic faith, reconstructed from ancient and diverse elements. In order to do this, this faith must be devoid of all local characteristics (Roy), that is to say a globally acceptable faith, a world faith! It is surprising but logical that the faith standing worldwide in the way of the global triumph of Manchesterianism is a synthetic faith, made of archaic elements. Only the abstraction of this archaism can hold its own against the commercial abstraction. Allah is the leading global trade mark, far ahead of « Just screw it » Nike. World vs. world. Only a world can fight against a world. You, stupid complacent bourgeois, what is at stake is, indeed, the fight against poverty. It is not relieving the plight of so-called less advanced societies. What is at stake is the world's lot. The scandal in this appalling world is not the existence of poor and rich people but the fact that rich people are spiritually poor and poorer than poor people in this respect. The scandal in this world is that it is faithless, meaningless, devoid of any reality, i.e. nihilism come true, the scandal is not that there are poor people, which is a mere consequence of that nihilism. This spiritual poverty offends Allah (I am not Allah, yet I am offended. How could he not be?) God worshippers actually worship humanity without knowing it. Screwism is a sin against humanity. According to Feuerbach and Marx, Allah is a projection of humanity, he is thus acting in self-defence. He strikes Bouvard and Pécuchet, as well as Homais, who have faith in progress. He strikes the human resource. It strikes cattle which thinks it is a citizen and, precisely for this reason, is just cattle. Since they started to earn wages slaves became the owners of their body (habeas corpus, right? Lautréamont wrote to his banker Darras : « on September 11, when my body will appear before the porch of your bank »... indeed) they think they are free while they have to stoop to a degrading activity which was never inflicted on antique slaves or medieval serfs : they have to prostitute themselves (how could antique slaves have done such thing? They did not own their body). They are only free to prostitute themselves. Today's slaves enjoy the most restricted freedom, the freedom they need to prostitute themselves, which is theoretically impossible to slaves. It is the famous principle of minimal freedom. This minimal freedom is crucial to slaves' masters who consequently strive to remove anything that stand in its way. So-called individuals who are supposedly increasingly freer are just increasingly freer to prostitute themselves and free-trade advocates see to it that this freedom grows uninterrupted, unchecked, unrestrained and unlimited. Nature abhors Lipovetsky. Since the areas of love, trust, family and religion have by and large been destroyed by the dollar — only Arabia is spared (there are four thousand Sa'ud princes, what a family!) — so-called individuals have no alternative to prostitution. They have neither money nor family to support them and all trust has gone to the dollar so no one trusts them and they have to prostitute themselves (if you have some time read that cynical scum Malthus* who, at least, is frank) and are, of course, enjoined to conform while being « innovative », double bind. Innovation my arse. Bin Laden, that's an innovator. In France pimps have reduced whores' working time to thirty-five hours, but that is still prostitution. There can be no prostitution without pimps. The slogan of the Lettristes « Never work » is generally misinterpreted. It does not mean « Always be idle » or « Do nothing » (it is every whore's dream to retire to the French Riviera with her pimp, doing nothing) but never prostitute yourself, don't be on the game, it is bad for life. Instead, move yourself, act. If you cannot do it, then join the Legion, voluntarily renounce your freedom, serve voluntarily but don't be on the game. The Greeks accomplished two miracles: building their towns in the countryside and obeying freely. This is what the world is all about. How can we build towns in the countryside and how can we obey freely? This world is all about freedom for some and prostitution for the others. The nineteen believers exemplify free obedience. « Never work » means obey freely, not never obey. Freedom requires obedience but the converse is not true. Freedom to work is merely freedom to prostitute oneself. That very well explains why pimps are highly interested in it. In Kirivina no one was idle and yet no one ever worked. Magic turns gardening into an exciting activity, not to mention sailing. This is what magic is good for, which is beyond an English Utilitarian's understanding. Magic is trust, magic is faith. Magic is here to give a meaning, not to bring the rain. Besides magic is timidly peeping out amongst the cattle handlers of the human resource. I will not cry over the obliteration of six thousand Youpis® (get to the towers, Youpis® ! — French writer Céline wrote before second world war : « Aux fours les Youpins. » Voyer write today : « Aux tours les Youpis. » Times are a'changing. NDLR) Those people, who only trust money, have more or less made this world as it is, with their militant, proselyte and vigilant submission (they do everything they can to take you with them in their misery, those are volunteering propagandists, they are the worst ones, no one can do anything against them, apart from the exterminating archangel bin Laden). So they have only added to my misery. I will not cry over them. Those birds of ill omen have been wiped out by birds of real happiness, a new concept on television, like in Rêve d'1 jour®, make your wildest dream come true

— « with unlimited funding, no financial limit to the fulfilled dream, huge logistics (indeed, those of American Airlines and United Airlines brought together) as the man decorated with the swastika of honour and other awards he has truly deserved was saying in le Figaro, November 30, page 32: he boasts to have conceived his show « the day after the 9-11 attacks », what a plagiarist. « After real TV, we simply wanted to bring some real happiness ." Well, he has done just that, and quite well, too. Le Figaro warns us: the show works (or does not) « with candidates applying for their dream to come true but with the secret help of their relatives and thanks to an enormous budget. « It » shakes (to put it mildly) the nitty-gritty of anonymous people by relying entirely on the surprise effect (to put it mildly) and the fulfilment of the wildest of fantasies (to put it mildly). » That is very well said. However, M.-E. Nabe points out in A glimmer of hope: « Producing, directing and distributing Apocalypse Now was far more expensive than imagining and carrying out the destruction of World Trade Center and the Pentagon! » Reality is always stronger than fiction which is poor plagiarism.-

It is nobody's fault, everybody is innocent, everybody is nice. Cheese ! But M.-E. Nabe remarks: « It is criminal to live like a fool. Nobody is innocent. " Living like a fool is a crime against humanity

— people in the towers were therefore criminals! People who call on their butcher's selfishness cannot be innocent. People who placed their trust in the dollar cannot be innocent. People who deny trust cannot be innocent. Civilian, therefore innocent. Civilian, certainly, innocent, certainly not. In religion wars there are neither civilians nor soldiers but faithful and unfaithful people. Those people are unfaithful. They have denied their humanity. Farmers in Laos who were revoltingly bombarded by the Americans, with bombies of united colors, were innocent and still are. They still do not roller skate which can be complicated anyway when you have one leg or both or even your life missing. —

Jesus asked: « What have you done with your talent? » What have you done with your humanity, now buried under tons of wreckage, mean man? It is an aggravating circumstance to be proud of it and to shout it from the rooftops. Pride, fools and proud of it. Bin Laden has therefore brought some real happiness with a terrible coup de grâce (a saving grace of course). And the fact is I am madly happy, to speak like Stendahl, to see that in such a world of money-grubbing nihilism there are still some people who believe in something and prove it, people who deny nihilism and most importantly, people who can express it while so many others have to bury their denial deep down in their heart. What an inspiration! There can be another way. Thank you BL without an H, great production. Accomplished directing. High-flying accomplishment. He who flies high is the true believer. « The battlefield was superb ! » In the meantime several logs were burning at the same time in the fireplace. Cheers ! Champagne of Virtues! (in fact Vertus ; Vertus is a little village in la Côte des blancs, near Avize, Cramant and Mesnil-sur-Ogier, villages which product permier cru, 100% classified grapes. In French Vertus means Virtues. NDLR) I drink to the tons of hypocritical fitting messages, to the gallons of crocodile tears shed by people who don't care about it because they are too busy screwing each other to give a fuck (they keep it to fuck themselves!). They are the only people allowed to voice an opinion. Small wonder. I drink to Stockhausen. I drink to that Glimmer of hope. This world of nothingness which was supposedly immutable is not so. It can be destroyed by faith, assisted by aviation. Only faith could bring it to an end. One could hope that faith will not be the Wahhabi's ruthless faith (muwahhidūn, the « Unitarians », an extremely abstract puritan and post-concomitantly Jansenistic movement, which, from the depths of the eighteenth century was the only one able and predestined to fight against the dominant Puritanism of the twenty first century!) As of today such a ruthless faith was the only one capable of taking on such a ruthless world, a faithless world, a world devoid of trust, a world of systemic mistrust, systemic deception, systemic nihilism. Lautréamont would have been speechless : as beautiful as... as beautiful as... (as beautiful as truth, as beautiful as hope, as beautiful as trust). This event is probably the only one that has not been fabricated throughout the world (M.-E. Nabe). A real attack with one real and single meaning (and an extremely simple one : « no ». These polyglot Arabs had practised before by saying « niet », with the CIA's help.), perpetrated, as people say, by real terrorists who sacrifice their real life thanks to the support of their real faith. « Overwhelming, impeccable, incorruptible. With Bin Laden in charge, instead of that sad Cohn-Bendit, we are safe... We know it cannot end up in the European Parliament ! » (M.-E. Nabe). The force is with them. Bin Laden is not the sort of man who apologises to a minister or an publisher, he is not the sort of man who challenges Berlusconi's police. Eventually, this global coup, i.e. this denial of nihilism has been carried out by bin Laden, a Muslim, an Arab, a Wahhabi (muwahhid). All this truth is fairly comforting in the midst of this hogwash, this pretended self-satisfaction, this indecency, this complacency, these compromises. « A fanatical terrorist Muslim may not be in the best position to decide on behalf of all of us what is and what is not bearable but it turns out that there is such a sensible insanity to his act that he becomes the messenger who tells the tale of the emptiness of our contemporary existence.  » (M.-E. Nabe) Any trust whatsoever is banished from that existence. Homo homini lupus : Man is a wolf to Man

note that the wolf is also a wolf to the wolf. It should be glad. It would be terrible for the wolf if it was a Man to the wolf. Contrary to what the Englishman Hobbes claims, Man is the only mammal which attacks its own species and therefore is aware of it, what Hegel calls the negative, evil. Man denies Man but thus knows his kind, acknowledges the existence of his kind while wolves only recognise individuals. This is what expresses the myth of the original sin, the myth of the tree of knowledge. Any savage people calls itself « the humans " in its language. This is what Bush does: Americans are the humans. No, bin Laden answers, the humans are those who worship one god, not two as Bush does. Mankind is a general thing, the kind of wolves is not. The kind of wolves is only a general idea. The kind of wolves does not exist until that general thing exists, the kind of all animals. And so animals are given a mind, for their sins most of the time. They did not all succeed as well as cats or horses (without Man, horses would be extinct). Same can be said about the economy. The economy is not a general thing but only a general idea, an arbitrary section in mankind which is the only general thing with sub-categories; it is an arbitrary section like the one, albeit judicious, drawn by an architect in the elevation of a house. Take a close look at all the houses you like, you will never see any section, except after a NATO bombardment in Serbia. In architecture it is also called an angle... an angle arbitrarily taken. Capito? The notorious anti-Semitic negationist and very controversial linguist Noam Chomsky wittily points out (and yet he does not look like the sort of person that laughs every day) that some Americans say : « New York looked like Beirut » but forget to add : « Beirut also looked like Beirut ". Capito ?

What Hobbes described as a state of nature is a result. The banishment of trust and the extension of the realm of struggle are one of the circles of hell (struggle as Houellebecq meant it in Whatever. Struggle meaning screwism. Similarly, some feel shocked when Houellebecq says he disapproves of individual freedom. But Houellebecq only disapproves of the freedom to screw, which is incidentally an illusory freedom : the screwist, raised to screw, born to screw, always wants to screw but he never does, he always gets screwed). President Bush intends to extend the desertion of trust and profiteering nihilism to the whole world. Let me repeat it, Allah is in self-defence and he is not the only one. The trust in Allah is not only one being chased, so is any form of trust other than the trust in the dollar. The whole world trusts the dollar. Let it die of it. Once again, Houellebecq was right: all of humanism has found shelter with the police. Surrealists had already said that the only free man on the street was the cop. Trust is its own end but it can also be a terrifying means. This time you have seen the female shark and the eagle in the sky, you bastards. When will the next dream come true, when do you have the next real misery? This so-called hyperterrorism is in fact a terrorism of university graduates who refused to turn into Youpis®. Blitzterrorismus (M.-E. Nabe). This terrorism is sighted, its victims are blind. Like Rimbaud it sees the abjectness of this world

— Rimbaud walks into a café in the Latin Quarter « full of hideous lorgnettes and beards », Claudel. In his presumed will Atta notes : « I resist life ». (« Te quiero, te adoro, mi vida », Dos gardenias, Ibrahim Ferrer.). Mohammed Atta, not poet and martyr like saint Genet, but criminal and saint. — ;

its victims are blind because they want to ignore they are slaves, that is why they are just cattle, a human resource, they do not even enjoy slaves' dignity, they campaign for the normal continuation of slavery « without the slightest idea what a decent life could be » (Necessary illusions, Noam Chomsky, well-known anti-Semitic negationist). In this world living normally is living like a slave without even wanting to know about it. Normal precisely means not wanting to know about it. The survivors will be worse, they will campaign for the normal preservation and the normal defence of their normal slavery so that they are free to go on prostituting themselves like before, what they call the normal life. The brilliant flying terrorists had had every opportunity to watch the most modern of bourgeois stupidity, with rose Cadillacs and palace Belle Époque on the Promenade des Anglais, when they studied as kids, since they were destined to become Youpis®. As Flaubert said, that's where education leads the sons of the desert. Like Flaubert, bin Laden is also a bourgeois, even though he is a much richer one! So he knows about bourgeois nihilism, about money-grubbers. He will also write his masterpiece which reminds of Salammbo and the Temptation of Saint Anthony. The anchorite and billionaire has a dream of a gigantic city. He is simple at heart. Mathô is hunted down in the mountains. The mercenaries are abandoned to the lions in the desert plains. Today Emma Bovary has got herself a pair of balls (she already had them since she was Flaubert), and he is flying a plane. He is looking straight at his target, that is to say his death, no matter what the sycophant La Rochefoucauld said about it. It is a global calmly excited Bovarism that stands in the way of triumphant bourgeois nihilism and commits suicide (not with the white powder this time). It disturbs the commercial happiness. « This terrorism can lead to no improvement of the plight of societies " (Revel. It's not meant to, you moron. The complacent bourgeois cannot imagine for a second that it can be about denouncing the impiety of this world, about denouncing the permanent sin against the spirit of the disgraceful self-satisfied bourgeoisie.) that are less advanced in terms of roller skates. It can only improve the plight of societies advanced in terms of bourgeois stupidity, where Revel, Attac and Politis are at large with their messianism for aphids and their citizen deeds (they want to invite themselves to the masters' table and get beaten. Serves them right). Their only motto is: more normal shit for everybody, more normal shit and normal citizenship for aphids (aren't whores citizens like any others ?) and less and less trust and meaning. Despite their apparent opposition they are agreed on this point because it is the point they are arguing about: what is the best way to make commercial happiness and the freedom of prostitution last for a few more centuries (Houellebecq's novel Platform takes a particular meaning in this context : he declares himself in favour of the freedom of prostitution. But it has been in force for two centuries already!) How to restore households' confidence (including, from now on, queer households)? That is this world's ideal. I think the word normal is Houellebecq's favourite word, the novelist of normal suffering. This terrorism is a lesson in faith, a lesson on the meaning of the world (ASSIMIL method), a dreadful attack on nihilism. Of course, this faith is antiquated, so is the world it aspires to. That is the only faith remaining. The Trinidadian (neither English nor Indian) novelist Naipaul says (Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 6 — 12 août 1998) : « ... the flaw that ran through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it offered no political or practical solution... It offered only the faith... This political Islam was rage, anarchy. »  That is precisely it. Islam only has faith whereas the others have mobile phones (telephone seems to be of high importance to Mr Naipaul who blames Muslims for knowing how to use it — like planes, as you have noticed — without having invented it). It is therefore a paragon of faith since it is the only one that has only faith, quite a despicable paragon indeed but also a very appropriate one, i.e. a paragon that is good enough to face off the faithless world of roller skaters, married queers and mobile phones. The world of Revels and Bushes has carefully destroyed and hindered any other possible faith and hopes to continue that way : it is precisely its nihilism. Since Islam only has faith it is well and truly the fight of faith versus mobile-phone nihilism. There is only so much one can give and Islam has only faith to offer. The Salafists' ruthless faith is therefore the ideal predator of this nihilism, and this predator itself has no other predator to fear since it is the only one of its kind. This eagle of faith makes light of B52s, alas, the unfortunate Afghans cannot do that. (By the way, who is really obscurantist? Those antiquated people or those genetic engineers driven only by the lure of profit? Those antiquated people or those idiots at techno parades ? That said, Bin Laden may be a modern nationalist statesman seeking the total independence of the great Arabia, a super Arab Mossadeq. Faith is his strategic weapon. We all know statesmen never get in a state of uncertainty. Besides he is arguably succeeding at it. The marriage of money USA-Arabia is suffering tensions and, against all appearances, Arabia still supports bin Laden.) And so, the world had not put anything away when the rainy day came. What faith could it oppose to the ancient faith? What spirit could it oppose to religion? It only has security services and patronising lectures (huge stocks of patronising lectures and informers and watchdogs of all sorts). This is an unfair fight (supercops and superspies of the FBI and the CIA cannot read Arabic after ten years of war against Iraq). Uneducated puritans are looking scornfully at a millennial society. They claim to be judging. They are being judged. There is no immune system against religion : they are infected by the AIDS-virus of profiteering nihilism. Contrary to what Vaneigem imagined, terrorists do not come out of the metro, they come out of the middle age, the age of faith, the age of cathedrals, the age of plague and cholera. They come out of oil wells. Speaking of well, the colour out of space is green. The world is of average size.

* « In the early nineteenth century, the Anglican pastor Malthus, great prophet of the English bourgeoisie had proclaimed with a comforting brutality :

"Whoever is born in an already overcrowded society has — if his family cannot provide him with the few means of existence he is entitled to expect from it and if society has no need for his work — no right to the slightest amount of food and he really has nothing to do in this world. At nature's grand banquet, no table is set for him. Nature puts him out to pasture and swiftly carries out its own command."

Today's official society, with the hypocrisy of its « social reforms », disapproves of such brutal honesty. But in fact the unemployed proletarian is eventually « put out to pasture » by society if it has « no need for his work », this happens one way or another, fast or slowly, evidence for it is the rising figures of diseases, infant mortality and crimes against property during the great crises." Rosa Luxembourg quoting Malthus Rosa Luxembourg citant Malthus.(4)

In the meantime, the screwist is puzzled. How can there be so much hatred, how can anyone hate screwism so much ? How can anyone hate peaceful roller skaters and scooter riders? I have no idea how it is possible but that is a fact. I heard on the radio some time ago the president of the society of Parisian roller skaters threaten a representative of the police chief to break up their society if the police did not allow roller skaters to go wherever they like, en masse, in thousands, outside the previously agreed specific lanes. He proudly added (Pride as usual) : « roller skating is freedom ». A typical screwist. Such a lofty mind. Such a high opinion of freedom. Nietzsche identifies the following as one of the causes of nihilism, for want of a superior species (Napoleons are in short supply) : « The inferior species — "herd", "mass", "society" — unlearns modesty and swells its needs so much so as to turning them into cosmic and metaphysical values. The whole existence is thus vulgarised. » (European nihilism, Nice, 1886) Indeed, now that roller skating has become freedom. Can there be a more cosmic and metaphysical value than freedom and a more vulgar need than roller skating? Screwism, as its name says it, is the freedom to screw. Screw each other. Houellebecq is right : compared to this, the police are humanist (Houellebecq admittedly does not mean it this way : he opposes the police's humanism to the Islamic commandos' barbarism). I also understand the sort of freedom Houellebecq says he hates. But against all appearances this freedom, which was terribly likely to plague us for a thousand years, is not immutable. The past is catching up on it, this part of the past that it has not managed to destroy completely yet (you cannot think of everything. Nobody's perfect.) Just the way Cuvier was able to reconstruct a fossil mammal from one shoulder blade, Bin Laden can reconstruct this shitty society from one roller skater or one married queer and come to the obvious conclusion. Such a world must disappear.

Two hilarious adverts. Air France : « Making the sky the most beautiful place on Earth » (it did not fall on deaf ears) ; Siemens telephones: you can see from below an airliner flying over the Manhattan towers : « In the world of business, all that's needed is a single weapon to render all others obsolete. ", in small print : « From the USA to Asia, you are feared. " with a little comment in the bottom right : « Be inspired » (In Rome, fanatical meant inspired. Those idiots thus wrote unwittingly: be fanatical. Wahey! This poster is actually a coded message like the ones the CIA ascribed to Bin Laden's videos. It says: in the world of business, this faithless world, faith is the weapon that renders all others obsolete. It says: from Afghanistan you will terrorise America. It says: be fanatical.) Yes, fashion is whimsical. Dallas, your universe is without pity. You have called on your butcher's selfishness and now you eat mad cow meat. Serves you right. And now die. However some butchers I have met know about honour.

Summary for those who may have been lost on the way. The gist is very simple : it is not the fight of the poor against the rich but the fight of good against evil, that is to say the fight of faith against nihilism

— at last! Not before time. Bush knows it very well. Slaves always pay for their master's sins. The fanatical Arabs stressed this in some statement in response to criticism of their hitting innocents : Americans claim to be the democracy par excellence, the people is supposed to be sovereign over there (while amongst the Wahhabi — muwahhidūn — God is), it has elected and entrusted its leaders and must therefore suffer the consequences of its leaders' harmful deeds. In a democracy, the people is sovereign and takes responsibility and is the only one doing so, otherwise this democracy would not be a democracy. The fanatical Arabs, still as ironic, take up the money-grubbers on their democratic propaganda and pretend to treat American slaves as Athenians. An Athenian would have had no quarrel with such an attack. Far from it he would have demanded the head of the strategists whose carelessness had allowed it to happen. Athenians did demand and obtain it, completely illegally, for much less than that. In Athens slaves were the only innocents in Athenian politics. Either the victims in the towers are slaves and therefore innocents, or they are citizens, therefore responsible and therefore strategic targets. In Guernica, the Germans invented terror strategic bombardments which took civilians as strategic targets. The Anglo-Saxons invented strategic bombardments which cannot spare civilians, but do not mind the occasional retaliatory terror bombardments on civilians like in Dresden, Le Havre or Hiroshima. Americans thought they were at peace with Allah, they were wrong. Bin Laden, with an implacable logic, insists again: « Every American is our enemy, directly or indirectly, whether he carries a gun or pays taxes. » Indeed, who finances the weapon industry if not the sovereign people with its taxes? Happy taxpayers. Every rich Athenian had to arm at least a trireme. —

It is not the fight of the poor against the rich but the fight of meaning against commercial nihilism, it is the attack of faith on a faithless world, it is a fight between those who honour trust and those who have denied trust, it is a fight between those who have placed their trust in God (some of whom are billionaires) and those who placed their faith in the dollar (the majority of whom is poor), it is the fight between trust and bourgeois screwism, which is systemic mistrust, systemic deception, the fight between selflessness and profit, it is the fight between the fanatics about God and the fanatics about money, it is the fight of an antiquated faith against state-of-the-art screwism (which has been around for two centuries: read The lesser bourgeoisie by Balzac) because screwism has wiped out any sort of faith

— but faith in money, of course. Lucien Chardon keeps saying to himself in Lost illusions : « Money, money ». A fiduciary currency, if words still mean anything at all, is a currency relying on faith, on trust. Trust has migrated to the currency but the greatest mistrust prevails between men. The bad trust drives out the good one. This is what alienation is. Alienation is alienation of trust. —

Screwism has wiped out any other sort of faith which explains Hitler's easy success in his time, but also why fanatical Muslim organisations can recruit so easily : they give a meaning to life, to the world, to a completely meaningless world, a completely nihilistic world, a world of money-grubbers, a world of Homais, a world of money-grubbers, of WASPs. What do you expect, it is irresistible. What antibodies could the miserable Republic of Weimar oppose to the man who stated : « You will be like gods », while its first President, Ebert, had crushed the Spartacist faith ? What could they oppose but Ebert's thrilling agenda : socialism is prostituting oneself a lot? Faith is not necessarily religion or trust in God. If God is, according to Marx and Feuerbach the projection in heaven of man's generic forces, then faith must be, even if it ignores it (that is precisely the question), faith in man. Marx confused generic forces with productive forces, that is his sin. He is a victim of Jean-Baptise Say (1767-1832) (whom Marx rightfully despised whereas he respected Quesnay, Smith et Ricardo). According to Say man had been a producer-consumer from time immemorial. It is always unexpected blows that catch you off guard. To Marx, Krupp explains Vulcan. Any religion, before being a conception of heaven, is a conception of the world. The screwist has no conception at all. It is day-to-day money-grubbing with only one precept : if I catch you I'll screw you. The screwist is the infidel (faithless), the nihilist. He does not trust anyone, only money. Faith has alienated itself (it has migrated) into money, if words, the word faith inter alia, still mean anything at all. Moses had a good reason for being mad when going down the mountain. He had understood the danger in the blink of an eye. The screwist goes scooting and roller skating. Skating, scooting, Orginet, Porginet, Aldous Huxley got it right

— and even better than I thought : at Jack Welch's, the Gracious Electrician, Edison's distant successor at the helms of GE, the « most admired » CEO in the filthy world of screwism, there are alphas, betas and gammas, the point being to identify the ten per cent of gammas to be eliminated and the twenty per cent of alphas to be promoted. Ain't that Christian? Holy scum. Jack Welch is a corporate builder and the means to his end is cattle selection. Le Figaro, December 17 2001. This Bin Laden is a wishful thinker, still too soft for this world. —

The faith vacuum created by money-grubbers and their nihilism leaves the door open to any faith, no matter what it may be provided it is there. As Houellebecq would say, it's the most stupid but it's the only one. Who is to blame? You have the faith you deserve. If this world were not such a prostitute, Wahhabi (muwahhidūn) would have nothing to say, nothing to do. It is the faith vacuum in the world of screwism that sparks off the Wahhabi faith and its dormant cells. Faith abhors a vacuum. Let us not forget that the lightning conductor was invented in the United States : the faith vacuum is a lightning rod for the wrath of faith. In Rome fanatical could also describe a tree struck by lightning! This judgmental world is actually being judged. Mané, técel, pharès. Puritanism is a religion but it is the denial of all faith, it is money-grubbers' faith. The puritan mistrusts God ! (originally, in Latin, faith meant trust.) He does not fear God since his fate is sealed but he busies himself just in case because you can tell the chosen one by his business even though all busy people are not chosen ones, on the other hand he is certain those who do not busy themselves are not chosen ones. (Weber, The spirit of capitalism). It is the precautionary principle, dear to the puritan schoolteacher Jospin who did not always follow it since he married a lovely catholic fuck who was blonde, an air stewardess, did not even have a PhD in philosophy but a mere BA in history and geography and to top it all wore red gingham knickers, suspender belts and underskirts! And this is true, you just can't make up that sort of things. This is how it started: one day, at the student canteen Châtelet, Jospin was sitting opposite a mouth-watering student who had forgotten to take a knife at the counter. Like a true gentleman, he offered his. Ha ! Freud. And what were the watchdogs, the fascists' hunters, doing all that time? They did not see anything coming, they did not denounce anybody. They live in the desert of bragging tarts.

A strategist from Attac, Susan George, le Figaro, January 31, remarks: « It is clear that bin Laden or his followers could not care less about the poor in their society », which deserves full praise. Congratulations, these Arabs are therefore neither leftists nor social democrats. She adds: « It is also clear that terrorism feeds on poverty and exclusion ", you have to understand this volunteer, her business is the poor in her society and even more those in other societies. Bin Laden is a big bourgeois and his nineteen followers are small westernised bourgeois, just like Susan George. How could poverty and exclusion, in the sense meant by Susan George, fuel the terrorism of such men, who are neither poor nor excluded, in Susan George's meaning, and do not care about the plight of the poor, still as meant by Susan George ? Besides, if we take the CIA's word for it, this is what bin Laden himself says about it, speaking of his nineteen faithful : « With their acts in New York and Washington, these young men have conveyed speeches that surpass all other speeches spoken throughout the world. These speeches are understood both by Arabs and non-Arabs and even by the Chinese." (le Figaro, December 14 2001) There you go, even the Chinese understand! Don't you? Those doctors, town planners and engineers are neither leftists nor social democrats, i.e. they are no professional and ostentatious volunteers who make a living of their compassion in Porto Alegre or elsewhere but who says these men, bin Laden in particular, are not deeply grieved by the deprivation of their people? If bin Laden and his followers care about the poor in their society they simply do not care the way Susan George does, if only because, to them, spiritual poverty and richness are more important than anything else. True: they hardly care about the defence of French gastronomy. Their prime objective is to snatch their country, including the poor living in that country, from the clutches of the American proconsuls. It is their own way of taking care of the poor. In this world of money-grubbing, those who claim to fight money-grubbing and its implacable logic are just money-grubbers themselves, you just need to take a look at that fat scum Bové, champion of the struggle of Roquefort against McDonald's. Money-grubbing, indeed, but organic money-grubbing for all, how about that? The Host pure God. These anti-money-grubbing money-grubbers just want to make money-grubbing liveable and, in the process, replace money-grubbers. Susan requires from leading money-grubbers to let her have it her way. Money-grubbing is a form of humanism. For fair money-grubbing. There was a time when situationists claimed to fight in the name of spirit, but they all ended up money-grubbers. In such a world, spirit is left in the hands of fanatical Arabs, of inspired Arabs. At the moment they are the only ones fighting in the name of spirit. It is spirit which struck New York. Who is to blame? The cause of spirit is in the hands of assassins, i.e. in good hands because money-grubbing has assassinated spirit for two centuries. Money-grubbing has suffocated Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary takes her revenge. She takes the veil, the Muslim veil. Lightning flashes from the potentially strong one to the potentially weak one. Where in such a world was there a potential for spirit that could have prevented this attack? Bush the money-grubber fights back with tons of explosives and peanut butter (Polyphemus, blinded by fury, is really struggling to nab Ulysses among all these Afghan sheepskins). Bin Laden, who is not a head of state, was able to attack a world as a world ; Bush, who is a head of state, can only attack, destroy or threaten a few states. He cannot attack the world represented by Bin Laden and his nineteen believers, the world of faith. No matter what he may do, he will never be able to. And he does not need to, trade is taking care of it.

Irony aside, this is why even the Chinese understand: the speeches are only conveyed, notified as a bailiff does, they are not spoken because there is no need for it, their acts finally speak for themselves : acts directed against a meaningless world are intrinsically sensible, negation of a meaningless world is sensible (which does not apply to propositions: the negation of a meaningless proposition is necessarily a meaningless proposition). It is no longer about cutting the throat of a few poor fellows in the Mitidja but to denounce a very complacent world which intends to continue that way, a world which calls itself free but is full of prostitutes and devoid of meaning, too busy doing business. Those two towers were just two large brothels full of poor devils forced to prostitute themselves every day. What an ideal, so much meaning ! Lifelong prostitution. And finally, meaning comes out of a clear blue sky. So anyone can understand in their own language those conveyed speeches (by the way there are hundred thirty million Muslims in China). For the first time in the history of terrorism a world as a world has been attacked, and not specific targets (even then, with these specific targets, the point was to attack a world but it did not show because the targets were specific), anyone knows that, everybody has understood it and is either delighted about it or deploring it. This is why I have also seen a glimmer of hope : first of all is it possible to attack the world as a world and only faith is capable of it. Moreover it is possible to endorse the cause of the world and that cause is the cause of spirit. Capitalism was attacked where it was not expecting it, on its nihilism, on its denial of faith; by those it was not expecting, by fervent believers; and for a motive it did not and definitely cannot conceive, its permanent crime against spirit. We are a long way from Henry and Vaillant's bombs. There is a dialogue from world to world. The attacking world harnesses the only weapon he has: meaning, the only cause for which men are prepared to die, like Greek heroes. This is Bin Laden's tour de force. Those conveyed speeches surpass all pronounced speeches throughout the world because they were globally conveyed. And because they were conveyed and not spoken they are impossible to forge. They are encoded and yet everyone understands them very well. Bin Laden and his nineteen believers are the bailiffs of the meaning, they deliver the meaning; but they are also its paladins because they snatch it from the clutches of the nihilistic dragon which, holding hand on heart, assures us it introduces an usually high degree of morality in its foreign policy

— William Kristol, some Bush adviser). This makes your blood run cold. Please, I beg you, no morality, anything but morality, especially not to an unusually high degree while it is already so harmful in small doses (I will know study the case Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who also wanted an enduring and generous peace, which brought about Keynes's resignation at the Peace Conference and World War II. To him, morality was not an empty word, he sacrificed himself to death for it. He was not a man to squeal indignantly, as Trotsky would say. But perhaps he should have been a sort of Roosevelt, the man with the rifle, great white hunter, interventionist, instigator of the international court in The Hague (!), capable of kicking the arse of his allied and keeping their greed in check. The German government had put its fate in his hands which was a high responsibility. Roosevelt was in favour of going to war as soon as the conflict broke out, which would certainly have sorted things out before irreparable damage was done. Alas, Lafayette had to wait. —

We know where it takes us. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning, we only want meaning, you brainless head. The United States is savagely attacked. It is its turn, for a change, and even without their twin towers of strength, they defend themselves as vigorously as ever. All's fair in love and war. It is a millennial tradition. It seems to me things are clear, they were absolutely predictable. You can stuff your crap theories on a just war, two-faced bastards, dirty hypocrites (Lettre d'Amérique(5) (What we're fighting for) signed by sixty American intellectuals, mostly professors, including that good old « Fuck-you-Yama » Fukuyama), after the tons of explosives and peanut butter we now have the tons of morality. Explosives, money-grubbing, morality, that's the full monty. You have to give some credits to the sixty moralists: they have learned their lesson: « what we do know suggests that their grievances extend far beyond any one policy, or set of policies.... Clearly, then, our attackers despise not just our government, but our overall society, our entire way of living. » Later on, in their innocent hypocrisy (it is the winegrower's plonk. They drink hypocrisy every day, they don't feel it any more.), after praising American values very warmly

— don't be afraid, they do not talk about trade and dough, the only real American values, but about beautiful moral values such as: « Each person must always be treated as an end rather than used as a means. », like at General Electric for instance or like in the offices of the towering inferno before it was destroyed. Such quiet impudence. There are over hundred thirty million prostitutes in the United States and there are used as a means while they are on the game and even the rest of the time, they are treated like fools. This is such daring puritan Tartufferie. —

they declare : « That's why anyone, in principle, can become an American. » But that is precisely the problem. Real American values are trade and dough and these values triumph throughout the world so that everyone in this world is enjoined to become an American. But bin Laden does not want to become an American. Those sixty moralists have not understood as much! What is it going to take for them to understand this simple fact? I suppose bin Laden reckons he is already enough of an American and a billionaire as he is. He knows about trade and dough, he a connoisseur. I suppose the nineteen believers also thought they were already enough of Americans, enough was enough. Besides they have shown they preferred Allah's paradise to the American paradise, without a shadow of a hesitation. Everything proves those Arabs did everything they could to remain Arabian. Check Roy on this, according to him, Arabs have been trying to remain Arabian for a hundred years. Unlike the American moralising hypocrites (the sixty good people), Arabs do not like to beat around the bush. The Moors beat the Bush. Bin Laden and his nineteen believers don't care about the so-called American universal moral truths and prove it by attacking the real de facto American values, trade and dough, sources of infidelity and mistrust. They do not attack churches but the temples of trade and dough. The sixty moralists are indignant : « the killers of September 11 issued no particular demands; in this sense, at least, the killing was done for its own sake. » Had they issued a particular demand, as Americans do when they want to kill, which they happened repeatedly in the last two centuries, one could not say the killing was done for its own sake (case already dealt with by Pascal in Les provinciales). And the sixty moralists point out that the leader of al Qaeda described the "blessed strikes" of September 11 as blows against America, "the head of world infidelity." So the sixty moralists note themselves (thank you, morons) that bin Laden has no particular, pragmatic, political, moral, in one word, American motivation but a general motivation, not only a general motivation but also a general target. He does not strike America as such but as the head of world infidelity. He does not strike America but the whole world and he strikes it for its infidelity. Bin Laden's general motivation is the infidelity of this world of infidelity and he strikes its head, or one of its temples. I agree with the US State Department on this (Département d'Etat US(6) ): "By attacking the World Trade Center, terrorists probably sought to attack a « symbol of America ». They did not. What they attacked was an international trade institution." This is absolutely correct except that Bin Laden, who can read English very well and thus understands the meaning of the words World Trade Center, says he attacks the head of world infidelity, i.e. the head of the trade world, i.e. the trade world itself. Of course the sixty moralists completely ignore that the universal value of faithfulness can have another meaning than faithfulness to Allah and that a worshipper of Allah can however be entitled to defend this universal value. Since no one defends this value in the world of screwism (instead of fighting screwism the pathetic intellectual merry-go-round is entirely devoted to fighting fascism and right-wing extremism, as for queers, all they think about is getting married) an expert in faithfulness, no matter how diabolical, has to take care of it. Congratulations, serves you right! You should have thought of it before. According to Roy (le Monde diplomatique, avril 2002), neo-fundamentalism has turned Islam into a simple system of behavioural norms, a sort of Islam-code in kit form, a world faith adaptable to all situations, from the Afghan desert to the American colleges ; in this sense neo-fundamentalism is as much a product as it an agent of modern deculturation. So as I said, it has backfired. The desert of global fidelity has brought about its exact opposite: the globalisation of the ferocious fidelity of the Arabian deserts. You cannot argue bin Laden has destroyed all fidelity (fidelity is not necessarily religion) in the world of screwism ! It is not Don Quixote that has destroyed knighthood. « The imaginary umma of neo-fundamentalists is quite concrete : it is the global world where behaviours are uniformed along the dominant American model (McDonald's, [Nike] and English) or along an imaginary dominated model (jellaba, beard and... English). " So Allah can screw Nike. Of course the stupid text by the sixty good people is published, in French, in Le Monde, the newspaper of Combinani the American. The United States are indubitably in self-defence and that was precisely what bin Laden (and perhaps Dr Strangelove too) had in mind, so there is no point in the sixty good people's quibbling; if the US had not been in self-defence it would have meant bin Laden had failed to reach his goal, the meaning of his act would not have been perfectly and clearly defined and the speech would not have been conveyed. Islamists invoke the name of God to kill indiscriminately, puritans invoke the name of God to make some dough, an action triggers a reaction, the joke has been going on for too long. This is the result of the introduction of an usually high degree of morality in the foreign policy, and, according to the famous anti-Semitic negationist Chomsky, this foreign policy is defined by wars and deceitful proxy wars. I am not blaming the US for being warriors but for being money-grubbers and moralising money-grubbers on top of that, for being Buddenbrooks, i.e. hypocrites and proselytes who dream of converting the whole world to money-grubbing, to the denial of spirit, for being people who shamelessly pretend to be friendly to all moderate Muslims all over the globe (let Allah keep them from such friends). No, thank you. Money-grubbing is a form of nihilism. To money-grubbing for all, the Wahhabi (muwahhidūn) answer with fanaticism for all. Marx scoffed at Feuerbach who did not understand there is no history of Christianity, instead the different forms Christianity has taken have empirical and contingent causes, and the situation is the same here. The world of money-grubbing did reactivate this implacable and inhuman faith, this is Jurassic Park all over again. Let sleeping tyrannosaurs lie. The absolute idiot Debray puts these words in the mouth of an American: « The strength of Islam lies in its moral vigour, its shared fervour... We do not have such morale [only morality ?] but we have means... » Who needs an objective or a meaning when you have means? This dear Dr Strangelove (I have seen this film three times at least) is as funny as ever! If that is not nihilism I don't know what is. At least bin Laden does not want to convert anyone to Islam. He has no intention of enthralling any non-Muslim country. He demands with strength and determination that the holy lands of Islam be evacuated by their occupiers, these holy lands where Islamism has failed. It seems to me that his only slogan is straightforward and constant: evacuation. Evacuation of Afghanistan, evacuation of Arabia, even evacuation of Palestine. Roumis go home. In order to do this he has to attack a world as a world, something that could never be achieved by states, neither by Japan, nor by Germany, nor even by Russia, although it declared it was its goal and threatened to follow it through seventy years long. The question of the world is finally raised at the global level, not by Fukuyama and others of his ilk, not by rebellious money-grubbers in Porto Alegre but by a fanatical Arab who conveys: this is what I do with your morality, you hypocrites, it backfires on you. Morality had gone overseas, like a virginity on a US Navy Seal's dick, returns as the female shark. Allah screws Nike... There is a curious paradox: apart from Afghanistan, which had no government and where it was supported by the CIA, Islamism has failed in all the Muslim countries (Roy) as a result of eradication or repression or has apparently succeeded but then turned into a national and nationalist state (Iran) ; consequently, the Islamist project (islamisation of modernity) has neither a meaning nor a future in those countries but only in America, only in the country of commercial nihilism where God is invoked to make money (Marx and Weber). It is the failure of Islamism in its own world that left bin Laden with no other option but to take on the world of nihilism, to approach the net as tennis players say. Why would he bother if he had succeeded elsewhere ? The islamisation of modernity will therefore derive from its annihilation. It makes sense, it is the only option available to an Islamist after the failure of Islamism. This is an unexpected mishap for the American dream. Bin Laden who failed (or political Islamism instead) in his world succeeds in New York. It definitely proves that anyone can make it in New York, anyone is given a chance in New York (like Paul who failed in Judae but made it in Rome). Bin Laden was instrumental to the CIA as well as the CIA was instrumental to bin Laden, no need for a conspiracy, American strategists are directly responsible for the bombings in New York (the missile bin Laden is cruising), they may benefit from it but that's another story. The stakes are high. He who rots last laughs longest. And whether there is a conspiracy by Dr Strangelove or not is irrelevant. When they make the burning faith of Salafists the plausible culprit conspirators make themselves the enemies of this faith, as money-grubbers. Guilty or not, manipulated or not, this faith remains perfectly entitled to denounce radical money-grubbing nihilism. It goes to show that whey you try too hard to prove something you end up proving the exact opposite. Even if the whole thing is staged the play is good the actors are brilliant, particularly bin Laden as bin Laden and Mohammed Atta as Mohammed Atta. The amazing Peter Sellers plays the parts of the eighteen remaining believers, of a CIA agent, of Mullah Omar, of the president of the United States and finally of Dr Strangelove. What an artist! In any case the weapon used remains faith and this weapon objects to utilitarianism. On several occasions Olivier Roy compares bin Laden with Action Directe. But there a significant difference in scale. The meaning was hardly perceptible in the acts of Action Directe and was also coupled with absurd rhetoric while, in this case, the meaning becomes perceptible in a global, wordless act. The two collapsed towers are an ideogram meaning faith! Even the non-Chinese can read it. And how could the Chinese, who had probably never heard of that group, have understood anything about Action Directe? Today, there is no need for words since the act is global. Anyway, for bin Laden and the nineteen believers there is nothing to add because everything is written in the Koran. It exempts them from elaborating absurd rhetoric and allows them to devote themselves to significant acts which even the Chinese can understand. M.-E. Nabe had already noticed it : the moderation in bin Laden's words is surprising, the violence and scope of his acts are all the more remarkable. The famous anti-Semitic anti-American negationist (but not queer and nazi, let's be reasonable) Chomsky calls on people to take the trouble to hear these words. Bin Laden speaks as a statesman, which Bush is incapable of doing, he can only speak as a preacher. Hate, Love ! The world's gone crazy and that's a good thing ; who is the layman, Bush or bin Laden?

One can understand a poor man dreaming of becoming a billionaire. But bin Laden is already a billionaire. He nearly was a billionaire in dollars when he was born and then he became one. He is therefore not driven by the poor man's resentment. After the failure of political Islamism (Roy), what else could he do, one against all, but a world guerrilla, with a felicitous blend of archaism with modernity, of faith with aviation? From the USA to Asia, you are feared. Be inspired. It is the first world guerrilla. Blitzguerrilla. Guerrilla too is getting global! It is a long way from the Sierra Maestra ! Bin Laden succeeds where Khrushchev and Castro failed. He has struck America. Bin Laden's strength lies precisely in the fact that he is not a head of state (M.-E. Nabe) even though he has the necessary skills for it. He is just a guerrilla but a world guerrilla, and a billionaire on top of it, which is by no means a flaw. So he is free as a bird. Bin Laden may be the only free man in this world. The nineteen believers died as free men while the people they assassinated died as slaves, i.e. as sinners against humanity. So much for the innocents. The death of the nineteen believers is meaningful, it is the good death of the Greeks. Their victims died just the way they lived, in absurdity. By conveying the absurdity of their death to a scared world their assassins prove the absurdity of their life. It is precisely because he is not a head of state that bin Laden can be a world guerrilla. Olivier Roy points out that the state of the Taliban is the only state in history sacrificed by its head (Omar l'a tuer) to an international cause as a result of his unfailing support to the global project of his guest. The weakest will be strongest, so the Gospel approximately says. Bin Laden is a condottiere who first fought on behalf of the United States and then continued to fight for himself. Unlike condottieri of before he does not spare his troops and those do not want to be spared . If only all the billionaires in the world were like bin Laden. At least we have a billionaire who does not keep grinning and shaking hands with his colleagues in front of the television cameras after a supposedly superprofitable merger. He is such a magnificent spendthrift. For the first time in the history of humanity, such a colossal refusal, such a colossal faith, colossal planes, colossal towers, the attack on a colossal country, the attack on the centre of a world by a handful of braves come to the fore. It is the first global attack. The Knight of the Sad Countenance finally tilts at a giant in his windmills, in his hot air mills, in his hot air malls. This Quixote thinks he takes on infidels; he does take on infidels; therefore nobody laughs! What Simone Weil said very nicely in 1940, bin Laden says very meanly today.

Having said that, the first amendment of the American constitution premier amendement de la constitution américaine(7) is an admirable thing, a legacy of Voltaire (shady financier), which turned that country into a revolutionary country. No Gayssot Act over there, no Gayssots either, they were all disposed of by McCarthy. Gayssot, go home. If I knew how to write it in Russian I would write it in Russian. It is not that country I dislike it is New Manchester, it is screwism, it is Youpis®, it is married queers, it is citizens deeds made by slaves thinking they are citizens, it is the watchdogs, it is perfidious Albion which martyred Lord Byron and Alan Turing, the Irish and even the English (spare the rod and spoil the child, right ?) and now the Americans, it is Anglo-Saxon cant insulting the real Grail, insulting Hope, in one word : the nihilism of money-grubbing, all those things the sad monopoly of which America does not have, alas. But today America is the land of choice of screwism, « the head of world infidelity " (bin Laden). I am not delighted to see America and Americans being struck, I am delighted to see the centre of global nihilism being struck and to see the reasons for it : either for nihilism or for infidelity, i.e. at last, for a fundamental reason and not for some political or imperialistic reason. In those horrible hives, a swarm of innocents were busy developing the nihilism of money-grubbing and its odious demands. A strange idea of innocence! I see a glimmer of hope, not because Americans were assassinated (let's face it, sects of assassins are an old Middle Eastern tradition, Fidā iyyūn, those who sacrifice themselves, 1090-1256) but because the immutable centre of global nihilism was attacked by faith, which is its negation. The main thing is that the immutable and insolent centre of global nihilism was attacked in an unbelievable, extravagant manner. This act is just as insane, from the viewpoint of the nihilist Homais, as what it attacks, nihilism, and that is only fair. Such a crime can only be perpetrated in a criminal world. Attacking New York is attacking the world. What I am delighted about is not the fact that New York is under attack (what does it matter?) but the fact that the world of commercial nihilism is under attack and that it is attacked for its nihilism, that the world of infidelity is attacked for its infidelity. Who will dare claim Hegel was right to say things progress through their evil side, i.e. through evil. There is always someone with an evil side worse than yours. Only evil can denounce evil. It is the considerable evilness of the world of infidelity that has awoken some monster of fidelity from the depths of the Arabian deserts. It is the negation of negation, i.e. the negation of nihilism which is the negation of all trust. There is always someone denying life more strongly than you are. Bin Laden, who are not yet in heaven, free us from evil. Amen. In the 1966 edition of the dictionary Petit Larousse, I can read under Islam : « Inspired by Judaism and Christianity, Islam is strict monotheism. The cult is very simple. Obligation to recite the profession of faith, five daily prayers preceded by purificatory ablutions, pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime, giving alms, holy war against the infidels threatening Muslim lands. » (The last commandment has been removed from the 1998 edition. Too late!) Bin Laden merely follows this very simple agenda implacably. What could Americans complain about since they actively campaign for freedom of religion in the world and sharply rebuke réprimandent vertement(8) European governments which take steps against sects. They would like religion to remain a private thing so that commercial nihilism, the banishment of trust, the banishment of altruism can quietly develop in the world. From what I gathered from reading Roy, Islam is precisely neither a state religion nor a private religion but a civil religion. State is a foreign body to Islam. « In the Muslim world the civil society is a society of law and it is actually the state that can seem particularist and « fanatical ». ... The fundamentalism of ulema defines a society of law; this means that the social sphere is regulated by objective norms which are as independent from the arbitrary of the Prince as western positive law may be (no more, no less). ... There no Islamic totalitarianism, no reduction of the civil society to the political life even more so as in Islam there is self-sufficiency of law and its interpreters without any interference from the state. By definition, the return to sharia is neither fascist nor totalitarian (which does not mean it is democratic). » Sharia is law, just as well as bourgeois positive law is, it is no despotism. (Roy, l'Afghanistan, Islam et modernité politique, Seuil, 1985). Religion, along with the work of solidarity groups (açabiyya) is (or was, or would be...) Muslims' civil society. Such a society of meaning and solidarity, whether it is dream or reality,

— « The Muslim image of politics accepts and even adamantly assumes that Islam exists sub specie æternitatis, timeless, not criticisable. " (Roy, The failure of political Islam); but the American image of politics adamantly assumes that democracy and freedom are, according to Bush, immutable (actually I think he more modestly said « enduring »), i.e. timeless, not criticisable, for centuries to come; but we are only talking about a commercial democracy, i.e. only a democracy for traders and where the only freedom is the freedom of trade. It goes to show anybody can make a mistake! —

such a society of meaning and solidarity is poles apart from screwism, which predominates in the commercial civil society. One must therefore understand the fury and meanness of Arabs when screwism threatens their society or their dreams of society. They are as furious and mean as the Americans when their so-called democracy is under attack. For Muslims, religion plays the role which trade plays for Americans. It regulates everyday life, whatever the political regime, just as trade regulates Americans' everyday life

— Americans live in shopping malls (Chomsky), and Muslims in mosques! Every man has his own temple. However, today, in the richest Arab countries, many Muslims also live in air-conditioned shopping malls. —

But these furious Arabs are well placed to perceive the appalling moral misery, the poverty of life and the desert of trust in which western supposedly sovereign individuals are engulfed. As I was saying earlier, they are sighted, their victims are blind. They want none of this misery, of this poverty of life. Like the billionaire bin Laden, they prefer to have a life of poverty but a great richness of life and... death. The attempt by political Islamism to islamise modernity is just another attempt, to no avail, to humanise an inhumane society. The failure of this attempt leads to the mere denial of modernity with the tools of modernity. Even though they were graduates the nineteen believers were no different from the poor, graduates or not, living in the whole world

— The United States is an occupied country itself, and the most occupied country since everything is bigger over there. It will probably be a very tall order for Americans to break free from this occupation but, I agree with Marx on this, the liberation of all occupied territories in the world can only derive from the liberation of Americans, i.e. the liberation of the most occupied country. The destiny of the world hinges on America and Americans. Neither the Arabs, no matter how fanatical they be, nor Allah, no matter how mighty he may be (and definitely not the fat moron Bové. It is already an extraordinary success that the fanatical Arabs were able to teach a lesson to the lecturers, a lesson summed up by these words : non-believers, which takes the biscuit for bigots like the puritans. The slaves of God reach out for the slaves of trade... in death) will liberate all the occupied countries in the world, Americans will, providing that they start by liberating their own country from what occupies it and from those who occupy it. One last effort, Americans — another effort, after so many already? Yeah, sorry — if you want to live in a republic. For now the country terrorises its own inhabitants, in the name of God, obviously. Same old Buddenbrooks! Terrorism begins at home. It is quite possible that, thanks to Dr Strangelove, a Bostonian neo-fascism has come into place in the USA for... thousand years. —

The only difference between them and the poor is that they could afford to take revenge on them and that there was a generous patron (so this is how bin Laden takes care of the poor, he allows them to live and die in dignity), which enabled them to really pursue individual goals. They had a goal in their life, a freely chosen goal, and they reached it, unlike so-called individualists who are supposed to live in this world but are actually happy gregariously doing as they are told with their tails between their legs. That is why Islamism takes on trade and its symbols. Islamism is an answer to screwism. There is always someone more violent than you. It is the rivalry of two civil societies (both dream and reality at the same time) or, to put it otherwise, two civil religions, with one worshipping God or at least pretending to and the other worshipping money, effectively and without a shadow of a doubt, whilst pretending to worship freedom and democracy. I particularly like those who claim « our » world is disenchanted. But such a world is Klingsor where girls-flowers abound, naked like peeled bananas. Every Muslim is a citizen of Islam, really so in the civil religion and ideally so in the community of believers, before being a so-called citizen of a state, i.e. a merely theoretical and not practical citizen, therefore he is much more of a citizen than the theoretical ones, the so-called citizens of the commercial society where only the abstract man, the theoretical man is a citizen while the concrete man is a Hobbesian screwist (Marx). The catholic religion, by interfering with civil life and loans with interest, disturbed north European traders who did everything they could to privatise religion so that the whole civil sphere was free for trade; similarly trade disturbs the civil religious life of Muslims, it disturbs the daily practice of their faith so much so that Islamists do everything they can to put an end to this devastation. According to political Islamism, establishing a Muslim state which would protect and defend this civil religious life from the ill effects of trade would however permit to develop the presumed positive sides of trade, i.e. technology and science. At least that is what I gathered from Roy : Islamists « stress they differ from the traditionalist fundamentalism of ulema, which is based on the alliance with official powers in place. Islamists' agenda is no longer the strictly legal programme of ulema but political and social changes. They want a state, not just the implementation of the sharia because the sharia can only be implemented in a really Islamic state... Any implementation of the sharia paying no heed to the social and political context is mere hypocrisy. This refusal of the strictly legal programme of ulema is based upon the will to define a political doctrine of Islam that takes into account the modern society with all its complexity...The sovereignty of God on men's society, which has fallen back into the djahilliya (the time of ignorance) and has forgotten it, must be restored. Once this is achieved the realm of law-making and political decision-making will be minimal. Good Muslims just need to deliberate among themselves for God's law to be recognised as such. » The predominance of God's law, of God's sovereignty over man's arbitrary must be restored (Généalogie de l'islamisme. Hachette, 1995). This looks very odd to me. Obviously, such a thing was already been condemned one first time by history and by Marx, this is the Christian state, religious in politics and political in religion. It was also condemned a second time by history (i.e. what did happen, as opposed to History, what was bound to happen. The judgement of the world is what is going to happen) as a state intending to replace trade to perform its task, which was the case in Russia when it was called Soviet (but was not the case of nazis who were smart enough to leave trade to traders with the striking success we know of — and who obviously were fortunate enough to have an already well established albeit devastated trade sector and competent Keynesian ministers at their disposal. — That good old Mercedes SSK! No state can be an alternative to trade.) That project was doomed to failure anyway. It was tantamount to wanting to combine the king of Prussia's flaws with Stalin's. Even more simply, trade presupposes nihilism. It is thus sheer insanity to want to associate faith to nihilism. It is like wanting to mix oil and water. There can be only one. Marx would say, as in The Jewish Question, that in this particular civil society (the one regulated by ulema and not the one longed for by fundamentalists), the whole political realm has not taken refuge in the state yet, which implicates that the man in this particular civil society is not the « natural » man, i.e. the selfish man of Hobbes and of Human Rights like the man in the bourgeois civil society derived from the French Revolution (bourgeois coup). Men in this particular civil society are (or were or would be...) true fraternal brethren in religion since religion is their civil life, fraternity is not just displayed on the ridiculous porches of the administrative buildings as is the case in the bourgeois society. Obviously the Islamists' project, which is to protect this society

— to restore it in fact as it is already destroyed, if it ever existed at all, and the destruction goes back a long way. In the early twentieth century Rosa Luxembourg already referred to world trade when she was making fun of Professor Bücher. The Muslim Brothers were founded around 1928. Today clear-sighted but backward people discover world trade and free trade and swinging free trade proponents (a topic for Houellebecq). —

would, had it succeeded, have only ended up destroying this society as certainly as trade without benefiting from either of them, as it boiled down to turning a civil society (precisely where the uniqueness of this religion lies) into a state religion. It is therefore a blessing that this project, having failed, was left with no other choice than to take on trade directly, on its own ground, because this project thus elevates itself to a superior level

— check what I already wrote on this in 1982 with Pierre Brée: le Jugement de Dieu est commencé (The Judgement of God has begun). Today I would no longer write that Arab states were Christian states as defined by Marx in The Jewish Question, at the time I did not know of ulema's existence and role. To give a brief summary, I wrote that, despite appearances, the critique of religion had yet to be made. It is plain to see it when, today, it bombs New York, it is the religion which does it, not the critique, alas. The critique of religion must highlight the truth challenged by the religious lie, otherwise it is no critique but pure deception and propaganda for the materialist and utilitarian lie. People prefer to ignore the issue raised by religion. Covering religion with opprobrium without highlighting the necessity expressed in it is putting off the evil day (till it blows up in your face, and it has, indeed...) Religion does not prove God's existence, it proves the vital need for a meaning, a meaning that the current world completely lacks. If you try to get rid of religion, it comes back right at you, riding its Arab horse. So long as you are materialistic you will be bombed. Bombing New York is a mere philosophical discussion. —

Islamism was already doomed and defeated before its attack on the world, but the principle it defends is not, i.e. fraternity in faith which, with this attack, rises to the global level by directly opposing to the world of nihilism, the world of the last man, the world of protesting queers and rebellious money-grubbers. Islamism was meant to raise the question of political Islam, the question of the Islamisation of modernity but it actually raised the question of the world. The prophet Jesus had said so : the last will be the first. Roy does not understand bin Laden's act. Instead of elevating Action Directe he diminishes bin Laden who he says has nothing to offer. But, just the way Omar sacrifices his state to the cause of his guest, his guest sacrifices his already lost cause on the global altar

— or more exactly the Islamists cause, and he is probably right on this. Amongst other things they act globally, referring only to the community of believers whereas Islamists, despite their proclamations, have always had a national or even nationalist agenda. But above all they no longer refer to politics which is why they became acceptable to the smart guys of the CIA. But above all, was bin Laden ever a political Islamist, is he not simply a Salafist fundamentalist with one and only slogan: US go home ? Anyway, bin Laden and his followers stem from the failure of Islamism, there would have been no place for them in a triumphant Islamism —

he had nothing left to lose so in a brilliant inspiration he offers it to the global cause. It is a deed of generosity. It is a holocaust. It is a lesson. By doing this he restores the value of his lost cause, much to the chagrin of all well-meaning people. In fact, bin Laden offers a demonstration : his cause is lost, it has proved to be incapable of islamising modernity but the principle it defends, faith, is capable of bombing New York! What other force in the world could do this? No materialist, no Manchesterian could have predicted such thing : faith therefore becomes a world power, completely freed from any political or nationalist plan, even from... religion. Bin Laden has just closed the book on religion. Now it is only about ideal, abstract, globalised faith. There is always someone more globalist than you.. Religion finds itself reduced to its simplest expression, to a personal relationship between God and the faithful, like for the American enemy. There is always someone more puritan than you. Finally the only innocent in this case seems to be bin Laden himself, innocent as in Perceval the innocent fool. One has to be really foolish to bomb New York without any precise political agenda apart to a simple reference to the community of the faithful and without caring about the American retaliation which will be, of course, ruthless. And still New York was bombed, which is the essential point. Bin Laden offers to bomb New York and he does bomb New York, the head of submission, conformism and impossibility. He proves that, contrary to the allegations of the Manchesterian propaganda, what is supposedly impossible is possible to the not submitted one. Thanks to aviation a handful of fanatical neo-Muslims were able to convey the depth of their scorn for the brilliant civilisation of Mr Bush, head of the world, and the American Combinani, head of Le Monde, like those Japanese who committed suicide in front of their enemy's door to convey their scorn to him. There is always someone more scornful than you. Freedom is criminal above all. Roy is surprised that behind the extreme violence of this act there is no political agenda, no project of society and no claim. But bin Laden's cause is freed from such things, from politics, nationalism, project of society. Bin Laden has reached the same point as those workers in 1968 who went on strike and demanded... nothing. However bin Laden clearly and briefly proclaims the motives of his act, which the workers of 1968 were utterly incapable of : he attacks the world of infidels for its infidelity. Isn't that clear enough by now? This is no assumption on the intentions, goals, strategy and faith of bin Laden or his paymasters, if he has any. How could I know any of it? The only thing I am positive about is the faith of the nineteen believers since they have given hard evidence of it (a bit too hard, don't you think ?), they have made a sacrifice too. Like St Anthony they resist life. Besides, apart from the evidence for the existence of this faith, I know nothing more. By sacrificing Islamism (literally so as, even if it wanted to carry on, Islamism could not do it anymore, you know why. Bin Laden is also a sort of Terminator. Perhaps it is one of his code names at the CIA?) in this global adventure, bin Laden exposes to an amazed world (according to Bush) the profound motives of Islamism : the hatred of money-grubbing, the hatred of commercial nihilism denying faith and, far more simply, denying any decent life. The cause is lost but the motives are exposed globally... Like ancient Greeks and Romans celebrated by Robespierre, some Muslims die for their homeland

— the religion of their fathers and no longer the land of their fathers since they are Muslims scattered around the world, totally cut off from their home society, from their family, from their host society, westernised and individually re-islamised, still according to Roy. These uprooted Arabs are the real inhabitants of the United States just as the Herodian Paul was the real inhabitant of the Roman empire, even Nero had to admit it. It is their own land which they bombed for its impiety. The world is their land, they are the real citizens of the world. They have seen the world. They have judged it. Veni, vidi, vici. —

a homeland which is also their faith, and they like their law. Americans prefer money to the law

— apart from lawyers because to them, law is money. And as I said: seven American families are suing the consort bin Laden, asking for a billion dollars in damages and a fine of hundred billion dollars on the noble pretext of stopping him from doing harm. There is really no limit to the puritan hypocrisy. If I was not God, I would like to be a lawyer in America. —

these Muslims do not. Money is an implacable tyrant above any law. Even more, bourgeois laws are designed to facilitate the reign of money. Laws serve money. The trust in money must be preserved at all cost.

« Americans live in the smallest country there is: My ghetto, my house, my car, my TV, my dog and my fridge (the dog in the fridge ?). Everything is reduced to its simplest expression. A great vacuum fills this vast space. And this vacuum must be hidden! » (M.-E. Nabe) It sounds like Groucho Marx. Having left Europe, Americans quickly reached the moral destitution (which, having said that, does not spare Europe). The physical destitution is no vice. The moral destitution and nihilism are. And it is this vice that those money-grubbers intend to force onto the whole world. And so they clashed with the inflexible virtue of the paladin Quixote and his sword from Damascus son épée de Damas(9) : « When the sword fell on America, the hypocrites looked up, pitying those killers who had played with the blood, the honour and the holy lands of Islam " (bin Laden). « We should perhaps ask ourselves why Islam is the most fervent flashpoint of faith today. Had westerners (Franks) not been so iniquitous perhaps Muslims would have been happy with a laid-back Islam. I will take it further and in reverse: if faith so strong amongst Muslims it is because they are the only ones left who believe in something. They call it Allah but it is more like « Alley-oop! ». A way of saying no. A black-golded no that shines in their green hearts. A no to the rotten mind and soul of men who have more than enough money or cholesterol. " (M.-E. Nabe). In other words bourgeois nihilism, claiming its expansion is immutable, clashes with the spirit which always denies. Lord! (in fact the Devil, the great black dog which did great circles around Dr Faustus. NDLR)

Much to everyone's amazement, bin Laden declared this world evil, in a way nobody can ignore to the point that the head of global propaganda himself, President Bush, thought he had to declare it good. For a short while the massive and uninterrupted bombings of nihilistic propaganda (freedom is free trade, free trade is freedom) was put on hold. This act, which had one precedent in 1968, delighted millions of people throughout the world and not only Muslims, millions of people whose opinion is unlikely to be heard for they are not allowed to voice it (According to the corpse Glucksmann, more than half — what an optimist — of the world population is delighted and he is positive about that!) Arabs spoke on their behalf. Like 1968 it came as a total surprise. A heavenly surprise. Only Allah can do it: taking on the most powerful nation in the world, barehanded, and with only one weapon, Alcibiades's dagger. Alcibiades's dagger has rendered all other weapons obsolete.

— It is altogether something else than having a crap on the moon or destroying a McDonald's (it would be fully indecent to compare the dismantling of the McDonald's in Millau by Bové the moron with the attack on the World Trade Center by nineteen believers, said Eddy Fougier, some scientist, Le Figaro, January 31. That's exactly it.) This small crap was just one giant crap for mankind, which was as much in the shit as ever. —

It is an act of global rebellion since nobody in the world can ignore it. It is global as it is world famous. It is a gigantic NO. That is why it delighted millions of people who suffer this world in complete isolation, in a desert with no trust to be seen. There is always someone more spectacular than you. It is a prelude. Nabe was asking : « What is the meaning of this act ? » A certain form of alienation of trust, the trust in God, denounces the desertion of all other forms of trust. With this act a certain form of trust champions all forms of trust. Even though it believes and says it fights for itself and for particular causes it fights for trust at large, it bears the colours of trust at large because when this form of trust was insulted trust at large was insulted with it. As it is the only form of trust remaining trust at large was insulted via it (yes, trust is an endangered species). Its uniqueness and its status of sole survivor necessarily turn it into the champion of all trust. That is why even the Chinese understand ! The cause served by bin Laden, the denial of nihilism, is beyond him and beyond his god, blasphemy. Such a trick of the mind! Some will say it is what brings sorrow to this world. Who is to blame? The twists of history (that twist has a name: USA, two centuries of manoeuvring, the American foreign policy is war, says Chomsky, famous negationist and anti-Semite, trade enforcement war, because Americans are consistent traders who do everything they can to ensure trade triumphs and is respected) have resulted in Muslim Arabs attacking New York. But what matters is not the fact that they are Muslims but that they are believers. It is not as Muslims but as believers that they are the paladins of trust, the enemies of nihilism. They really have achieved something. With their particular faith, these people honour trust as the ultimate virtue and are therefore the paladins of all those who secretly respect trust in a world of screwism where trust, constantly, relentlessly, mercilessly chased, bombed night and day by clusters of non-sense, must be buried deep down in the heart (« it is crucial that normal human feelings are repressed ", Noam Chomsky, authentic anti-Semitic negationist). That is why they do not shout from the rooftops. But that is also why all hope is not lost. Trust smoulders in the heart of every man providing that he is not a screwistic hypocrite (real people, those who have not denied trust deep down in their heart, and who still form a large majority). Its shiny flame soars again on every occasion, at the first opportunity. These paladins are the only resort, the bulwark of trust. The spirit consists in trust. Trust has alienated itself into the dollar. It now resides in the dollar. By doing so it has become general, global. The whole world trusts the dollar. By alienating itself, the spirit has become global. Alienation is the price to pay for the generalisation of the spirit because the emigration of trust into the dollar is also the denial of trust, its desertion and, henceforth, the greatest mistrust prevails amongst people (which President Bush totally ignored, no one had told him, apparently, since he was so stunned). The emigration of trust into the dollar is also the denial of trust for another reason : trust presupposes doubt. In the absence of any possible doubt, no trust is possible, no faith can be given. But nobody can doubt money, nobody can not trust money. All doubt is impossible and money is therefore an absolute certainty. That is why the world of money proclaims itself immutable and the only possible one, if not the best, for now... The whole world could witness the magnificent power of trust when it denies what denies it (what denies it while chanting canticles), when it rejects its banishment. It was triggered by its denial (the dollar) and armed by its denial (the dollar). The colossal power of its denial (the dollar) ensured its power and its determination. The width of the gap separating from real life (the dollar gap) exasperates real life, the life of the spirit. In any case the spirit is at odds with the spirit. The spirit denies what denies the spirit and which, however, is also the spirit, the spirit of a spiritless world. Lastly, it has nothing to do with a fight of the poor against the rich, it is a fight of the believers against the infidels, of those who honour trust against those who have denied trust. It is a fine accomplishment. It is an act of generosity. The high death toll (besides Americans have already tied in Afghanistan : 3500 all. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.) does not mean it is not an act of generosity. What else do other billionaires with their billions and other living people with their life ? Like Wittgenstein, bin Laden gets rid of his fortune. He unloads it onto your head. At least, say thank you. It is a lesson learnt the hard way, but it is a lesson and he is a good teacher. It is a holocaust in the literal meaning (according to the etymology, wholly burnt, implying : do not eat the meat, leave everything to the gods and nothing for men, in other words, a total sacrifice). Did the smoke please Allah's nostrils? Destroying two insolent towers of the World Nihilism Centre and, most ironically, to get a qualified town planner to head the operation is an act of generosity for the future of the world, if there is a future at all, however (I. S. n° 6, page 7 : Représentation en relief de la fonction modulaire elliptique !) It is generous because it is selfless. One cannot be more of a billionaire than bin Laden. He has obviously no financial interest in it. And it also an act of generosity if this world has no future. Before I die I will have witnessed this slap of the Moor in the face of the puritan, the WASP, the money-grubbers who never question their goodness or their righteousness after two centuries of manoeuvring and money-grubbing nihilism. Bloy would have enjoyed this. Never mind getting screwed. But getting screwed by someone chanting canticles, no thank you. Borgia the Catholic did not chant canticles while he committed his crimes. Thank you BL without an H.. You really have to be selfless to live like an anchorite whilst being a billionaire, whilst the Sa'ūd live a life of luxury. In his desert the saint turns down all the temptations presented by the demon. The hypocrites with their crocodile tears who all declared themselves Americans in the wake of 9-11 now pretend, three months later, this global achievement the authors of which are common individuals (do business yourself, right ?) never happened, they pretend nothing remarkable happened (including those antiglobalists who continue to go about their little business as if nothing happened. They would just like to make money-grubbing nihilism liveable and fair.) It is the omerta, they are all Corsicans. But the towers have not grown again, nor have the dead risen since then. These hypocrites have resumed their shady business which they had never suspended anyway. However those who were delighted by this act will never forget. This slap in the face of enemies of trust will light up their life until the day they die. Bin Laden is right, it is the reign of hypocrisy. Engels already said it Engels le disait déjà : « this is the humanity of trade : the glory of the free trade system is to hypocritically use morality to immoral ends. » But the American Corsican Combinani, head of Le Monde, is also right : hypocrites are all Americans. (President Bush is the head of the world. Combinani the prostitute obsequiously licks his hand and even... both.) Combinani and his newspaper come up as the spokesperson of hypocrites, of the rotten France, of the puffed up (with complacency) France, of the France of collaboration

le Monde is still le Temps, only the invader has changed. These people are conformists as meant by Moravia. They will be pro Mussolini when Mussolini comes to power in France or elsewhere. Today Le Pen is a resistant, Combinani works for the Waffen US, globalist elite troops, he is a collaborator, always obsequious with the occupier. Today the occupier is general Manchester —,

which will surprise no one. When Combinani has the nerve to write on the first page of his paper on my behalf as well as on yours : « We are all Americans »

Waffen US, what did I tell you? And why not all Laotians, you scum? This god which blesses America and to which many Americans, including their president and warlord, keep referring over and over between two profitable business deals or two wars seems to hold dear any human life except, apparently, for the life of Laotian farmers and so many others. Bloody puritans. If, out of the erstwhile Thirteen Colonies, ten provinces had been Quaker (only one was, Pennsylvania) instead of puritan, the fate of the world would have been changed, as well as Cleopatra's nose. The fanatical Arabs are earnest and honest, their god does not hold dear the life of Americans or theirs. Honesty begins at home. The paladin bin Laden avenges the true innocents that are Laotian farmers —,

he actually only speaks on behalf of hypocrites. It is unquestionable, Combinani and Merry Messier are Americans. I am neither American, nor Wahhabi (muwahhid). Roy ne suy, sire de Coucy-Couça, suy. Et cella me suffy. Just in passing, the prostitute Combinani also reveals that the so-called consumer (the real prostitute, actually) is supposed to spend his life between the supermarket and television, between television and the supermarket. So when do these prostitutes get to be on the game every day? When a whore has made earned lots on the game, she buys herself a white mink, then, when she is angry, she throws it on the floor and stamps on it. But she is on the game in between.

So I was saying : the economy does not exist. The world is a system of trust, based on trust, i.e. currently based on the dollar. In such a world there is no room for a so-called economy, nor for a so-called material basis, the dollar is not material at all and that is the only explanation for the act of the nineteen believers. Trust is no myth. Reject incredulity: you'll be doing me a favour. General conclusion: only faith (faith at large, not only the Wahhabi, Salafist or even simply religious meaning of faith) can defeat a world already based on faith, faith in the dollar, only faith can defeat money-grubbing. The money-grubbers Hobbes, Locke and Hume have screwed Marx et Engels but September 11 gave the latter a second win. The dollar is very spiritual but does not give any spirit to those who have none or to those who have some. Bush would be a good mailman, he is as deaf as a post: « I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. I am, I am -- like most Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are. " (Such a joker, he meant the goods we have! And he is right there. You have nothing to fear since it is President Bush's personal auditor who says so in the tales of Andersen!) Some people never doubt anything, especially not about themselves. At least they are amazed, that's a start. On the contrary, I think the fanatical Arabs understand very well what the country of good people is and who the good people are, i.e. those pretending to be so. Really good people do not usually brag about it. These Arabs hate nihilism, especially when it aspires to dominate the world triumphantly. Just remark this : Bush is not amazed that, for once, the resentment of commercial nihilism was able to express itself, he is amazed that anyone should hate him at all. Had this resentment not been able to express itself that poor man would still know nothing about it, after two centuries of manoeuvring. He well and truly is a Buddenbrook. May God save us from good people. God does not like America any more, he hates it and proves it. Where are we going? God only knows.

Moral of the story : better bomb New York than fuck Mrs Jospin. Also, thanks to the adventurer and billionaire Largo Winch bin Laden

— not the role model of religious people but of  worldwide offenders, there you go, freedom is criminal above all. Bin Laden is the first, and so far the only one, global offender —

it has been five months since we last heard of negationist paedophile nazis. That's a relief! Meanwhile the two sissies (Allons-y chochotte, chochotte allons-y ! Erik Satie) are simpering and need to be begged to run for president. Roller skaters, married queers, electoral tomfoolery, Monkey Minc climbs onto the table, waves his four little hands and fraternises with Bové, which is not surprising at all (the fat man with a moustache did not waste any time), frivolity and boredom, this world is about to disappear, nobody knows how but it is bound to happen. The gentlemen at Davos need their devoted and volunteer antiglobalist friends. Those people can look forward to many lucrative job opportunities, as was the case for their elders in 1968. Opportunists with or without a moustache, you can stuff your other possible world up your arse, i.e. the same world adjusted to last a few more centuries. There will always be people who do not want any of it. Henceforth, bin Laden will be the ultimate reference point. The world is divided between people who still believe in something but generally do not have a say and people who do not believe in anything anymore (nihilists, strictly speaking) but who do all the talking. The latter have nothing to say but they want it to be known by all. Besides, I have no reason to defend bin Laden.

I am indebted to bin Laden. Thanks to him I have cared to look up the etymology of the word faith and thus discovered the name of what I have dedicated my life to. What do you think, the angel Gabriel (oh! Gaby) not only speaks to Muhammad. I used to be like Beethoven, the spirit was talking to me but I did not understand what He told me. Then a few phone calls on the bin Laden case drew my attention on the word nihilism because the disgusting pompous and snivelling moron Glucksmann, that sententious Whinging Wall (what a pity he was not, together with his offspring, in the towers, where he belonged. It is such shameless to have children in this world and then come whinging afterwards. One of the few big bosses of those towers was saved by his daughter whom he was driving to school at the time of the attacks.), only the school at rue d'Ulm can produce the likes of him (the school of nerve as Professor Bouveresse would put it), pours out conferences and statements on the nihilism of fanatical believers, which is a contradiction in terms. This gross contradiction immediately led me to realise: it is this world which is nihilistic, not the fanatical Arabs and it is precisely why they strike it. Russian nihilists were fanatical but not all fanatical people are nihilists. Similarly, some Russian nihilists were assassins but not all assassins are nihilists, like a lieutenant colonel un certain lieutenant-colonel George Washington assassin of Jumonville, son-in-law of the marquis de Vaudreuil (the year before, in 1763, the English commanded by Sir Jeffrey Amherst provided Ohio Indians with smallpox-infected blankets, thus inaugurating biological warfare. Anglo-Saxons are charming people. According to some fanatical Muslims, America is an occupied country and still belongs to Indians.) Far from it, these fanatical Arabs, these inspired believers are anti-nihilists, they are the annihilators of roller skaters and papas. They are moved by faith. This massacre of non-believers by fanatical believers is barbaric, criminal and cruel but it is not nihilistic. It was perpetrated in the name of the highest value, in the name of God and to serve God while nihilists celebrate the death of God (according to Weber, Americans, taking after North European traders of the sixteenth century, have put God in the attic to freely indulge in the joy of trade, their god is a back shop god). Nietzsche applies to himself the term « nihilist ». Nihilists kill for the sake of it whereas conversations between Robert Fisk and bin Laden reveal that the latter declared America impious because it occupies the holy lands of Islam (sacred, meaning forbidden and inviolable) and that this massacre was therefore accomplished to serve and glorify God. Al Qaeda members are deniers because they deny but they are no nihilists. Deniers, like the Hegelian negative, denies a given object, e.g. money-grubbing and its pretensions, Nihilists deny everything and every value. As Nietzsche said it so well they regard their vulgar needs as cosmic and metaphysical values. Nihilists combine cynicism and naivety, cynicism being the disregard of every value. Cynics have many ideals, they go from one disappointment to another, which lead them to disregard any value ; cynics only recognise one value, themselves (that goes for La Rochefoucauld, more disenchanted than cynical, theoretician of self-esteem, Talleyrand or Sacha Guitry but also for any modern screwist, apart from the talent, obviously. Screwists go from one disappointment to another but cannot even acknowledge it. Cynics hurt themselves- like Stavrogin —, screwists — like Peter Stepanovich- coddle themselves, well, they try to). In Dostoevsky the possessed are the toy of the true cynic Stavrogin. Al Qaeda members have no cynicism whatsoever, they are inspired and have naivety strictly speaking: they are natives of a metaphorical desert where everything is simple and crude as in the real desert, they are Bedouins. They live in the deserts of Afghanistan or in the desert of New Jersey, populated by good people blessed by God, or in the crowded deserts of London and Paris. They have stripped the millennial Islam of all its subtleties to mythically revive the time when it was foreign and pure combat. Only a faith as crude and ruthless as Wahhabism could match the ruthlessness of Manchesterian nihilism (there is nothing more ruthless than an Anglican money-grubbers who thinks free trade is Jesus Christ), and with great panache, too. Bin Laden is no Stavrogin and the nineteen believers had sturdy minds, nerves of steel, they have nothing in common with the sorry mediocre people which nazi officials were, each of them was an extraordinary man capable of acting individually and on his own, they were men of the desert and had absolutely nothing to do with the colourless beings depicted by Dostoevsky, the toys of a toy (Peter Stepanovich). These anchorites have no needs, which prevents them from having vulgar ones. In order to act, al Qaeda members need a powerful motivation. Therefore they are no cynics, they are no nihilists. In The Idiot four young people storm into the home of Prince Myshkin (part two, end of chapter seven and following chapters, spicy portrait of des sectateurs de la « Téléologie moderne » (sectaries of modern Téléology)), to arrogantly assert their fallacious rights (in fact they are manipulated by a crook) whereas Mohammed Atta was known for his urbanity (which is the least you can expect from a town planner). American leftists argue (which would be completely unthinkable in France, a country where the voice of the master and the collaboration reign, not back in 1940 but today, it does not apply to everybody but to all who speak in the box) about America's responsibility and guilt in this attack but, to my knowledge, they never argue about its meaning. For once, America is not faced with a political cause, as in Vietnam for instance, but with religion, with the wrath of God, which is amazing, with a definition of what is human and what is not, with a definition other than its own, for a change

— only money-grubbing is human, it is blessed by God, of course, and coupled with obsessional references to values, that are, in fact, violated every ungodly day. To top it all, money-grubbing has pretensions. It cannot sell its stuff without constantly referring to God and the highest values. When Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are the leaders of a country as powerful as the United States, it is ridiculous but it is also frightening. That said, Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are also ubiquitous in France, not only in the government but also in the press, on the radio, on television, in trade unions, in politics and so on, but here it is only ridiculous. After all, Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are French specialities so we have large servings of them. And we also have Bové ! But we do not have the megatons. —

The puritan pious money-grubbers have met someone more pious than them! There is always someone more pious than you. Malraux was an exact prophet. In the very first year of this century, the speech conveyed by bin Laden's youths states that if this century is to take place it will have to be spiritual and that only the spirit can ensure the security of Americans, and not only of Americans, which has nothing to do with Roquefort. Bin Laden is neither a statesman, nor a politician, but a believer with a sincere devotion and purified mysticism. After the failure of political Islamism he moves on and leaves politics behind. It is precisely this absence of political references, this stress on the sharia and the sharia only which pleased the CIA so much. Today we are more knowledgeable of bin Laden's religious project, it has become global. The reason for this attack is not a land issue, not a money-grubbing issue, it is sacrilege, and the fanatical Arabs match this sacrilege with sacrilege (assassination too is sacrilege). There is always someone more sacrilegious than you. The leftist Hitchens asks the leftist Chomsky if America has ever done anything as horrible as this attack. Yes, what it has done is sacrilege, and it obviously does not know about it (while in My Lai and in so many other places, it did). Even Chomsky does not seem to know about it. America, that is, its leaders, thought they were dealing with a banal trade enforcement war, what they generally call defence of the free world. But they are dealing with a religion war. America is faced with religion and faith and not with nihilism because it embodies nihilism, the poverty of life as denounced by Nietzsche, life reduced to money-grubbing. Despite its phenomenal power or perhaps because of its power, America is the smallest country in the world, a pinheaded country, the country of good people blessed by God and of the Nobel Prizes in Physics (having said that, America does not have the monopoly of poverty of life, it is only the first one in this matter, as everywhere else; it is the same story in France, for the worse in some instances, but with Fields Medals). It is as if America swept all its intelligence aside on the pretext that it is too tiring. It is the terrible desert devoid of any trust in the United States and in the rest of the world which triggers and sparks off the revival of the terrible trust in the deserts of Arabia. Besides I would like to dwell on the points on which I disagree with American leftists in this matter. They draw up a list of all the atrocities perpetrated by their country in the past century in the name of its foreign policy. I do not hesitate to take up this litany myself when I need to, as you can see here; but I think the greatest harm America does is what it does to itself, the way it inflicts harm on its own so-called citizens (I can say the same about France of course, but no one is interested in this small country anymore, it is not a target worthy of the Arabs. The world is not becoming French, it is becoming American including France because among all money-grubbers, the United States is the first.) In my opinion this is the cause of the resentment of the fanatical Arabs : they do not want to be next to become zombies. They would rather die. If that is what it is like to be American, it will be over my dead body, and, as they have shown, it is no figure of speech. If Americans were at home a great example of humanity, as their president seems to believe, while they are simply money-grubbers, « rational maximisers » and prostitutes for the rest of them, Arabs would not bomb them, they would be keen to become Americans (for now starving people dream of becoming Americans, but it is not the spirit, the high morality, the great civilisation of Americans they envy but their obesity. Un Maigre chez les gras, Breughel, il me semble, et l'inverse, Un Gras chez les maigres, en Arabie.) Besides they could also bomb the French or the English or even... the Chinese for the same reason. But the United States is the head of world infidelity, i.e. of the world of money-grubbing, as bin Laden obligingly points out. Anyway these two viewpoints are connected as a country oppressing other countries cannot be a free country and if America was this great model of humanity praised by president Bush there could be no litany of its atrocities. No smoke without fire, Sitting Bull would say. The United States is an occupied country like any other one, occupied by money-grubbers and money-grubbing like most of the other countries. We all know that to money-grubbers money-grubbing is all that matters, Flaubert depicted it for us, and if you do not like money-grubbing you are either insane or criminal. Arabs disagree and they prove it. Roy is wrong, bin Laden has not failed.

— besides who can claim to know the goals pursued by bin Laden, which would be necessary to state he has failed to reach his goals? For my part, I confine myself to his statements and the meaning his operation takes, regardless of his goals, which are unknown. After the battle the goals are irrelevant, only the result counts : faith has bombed New York, faith has bombed Sodom, no matter what other goals bin Laden may have pursued. The raison d'être is not in the beginning, it is not in the goal either, the raison d'être is a result. Heil Hegel ! (let us sum up Hegel in one sentence : what exists is not necessary, it becomes so. Is it simple enough?) I do not want to know why it happened I only care about the meaning of what happened. The meaning is a result. —

His success is philosophical, it deals with the meaning of the world and the meaning of life, which are no longer debated anywhere in the world today since money-grubbing has triumphed everywhere and... for ever according to its professional sycophants. So far religions were the only avenues found by people to theoretically deal with collective beings, which are necessarily transcendent, that is to say to theoretically deal with themselves (we should note here that one of the predicates of divinity has escaped Feuerbach's sagacity: transcendence. Even this predicate is human since collective beings, characterising humanity and humanity only, are transcendent and... invisible, invisibility is another human predicate not considered by Feuerbach. All we can do is remark their effects. Making God a transcendent being is therefore an effect of clairvoyance, of poetry but not of obscurantism, as some little Jules-Ferry may claim, some people who only know their money-grubbing home in this world.) These Arabs are the only ones today who theoretically deal with this question, a question on which Marx completely failed. I am absolutely certain that this philosophical success has never been considered by bin Laden who is not the doctor but the philosopher in spite of himself. Where money-grubbing triumphs, only the tireless chatterboxes Homais, Bouvard, Pécuchet and Adler can have a say and climb onto the table. You hear them all day, continuously gibbering on the wireless set. Perhaps BL without an H did not achieve what he intended but his proclaim « money-grubbing is not all that matters and I prove it » remains. It is not only relevant to Arabs or Muslims, at least I hope so. But if bin Laden and the nineteen believers do not say it, who has said it, who will say it? Roselyne Bachelot (the arsehole Ruquier has also apologised, same bunch of scum) ? What does the philosopher in spite of himself tell us? « Life is just a second dream », in other words dreams take precedence over life. The money-grubber says : « you need life to dream » (what does a money-grubber know about dreams and thus about life?), bin Laden replies «  Life does not matter as long as we have dreams » and proves it. Today al Qaeda members are the only ones capable of theoretically denying money-grubbing in an audible way

— theoretically because it is only a demonstration. Bin Laden did not intend to invade or destroy America. When Shiite extremists blow up Marines' barracks in Lebanon, Americans withdraw immediately. They also withdraw from Somalia straight after the first bloodshed. But here they could not decently withdraw from the United States, the American army could not decently evacuate the United States after the first warning, where would they go anyway ? In Palestine, with Jerusalem as a capital? But Palestine is a country that is already « overcrowded », there are still some Indians alive over there — ;

they are not, I hope, the only ones who deny money-grubbing, but they are the only ones who could make themselves heard. In this world of separation and chattering silence, it is all about making yourself heard, if not understood (the sixty good people have perfectly understood, better than anyone else, what the fanatical Arabs were attacking), and these Arabs have succeeded in it whilst remaining very economical : not only have they made themselves heard, but they were heard by the whole world. Attacking New York is attacking the world. So, in order to attack the world, they only needed to attack New York. And now they have. It is a glimmer of hope to see that these men can make themselves heard in spite of the systematic organisation of silence — finally, non-money-grubbers, non-rebellious-money-grubbers, non-professional-or-volunteering-sycophants-of-money-grubbing can make themselves heard —, that deserves a glass of champagne; but the fact that it took such men resorting to such means to achieve this tells a lot about the stage of mutism the world is at. Desperate ills demand desperate measures, don't they? Who is to blame, I ask you again? Perhaps we should, for a start, shoot down all the professionals of mutism who speak in the box at high speed, without ever catching their breath because they are so eager to impose on us their « well-informed ignorance » (Davies and Sardar), because they have so many non-things to say

— when Houellebecq is talking in the box that is a completely different story. He finds the rights words. He is so economical in his speech! What did he say in his defence in court on the lawsuit brought against him by Muslim associations? He knows nothing about monotheism, he often changes his mind; but he uses semicolons better than anyone else. The judge can only bow to such an argument — ;

then you would not have to speak so loud anymore when you have something to say! Those professionals of mutism who say they are all Americans share the responsibility for the attacks on New York because they control more than a fair share of the organisation of mutism. The fanatical Arabs have so perfectly assimilated the American practice of bombogram, bombing as a press release (Why do people hate America, Davies and Sardar), that they improve it by turning it into a philosophical manifesto. There is always someone with better bombograms than yours. (even the Chinese can read it). The joke is over, philosophy has become serious again. The discussion on God's existence, i.e. on the meaning of the world, has resumed, in a slightly brutally indeed. The pupils surpass the masters. They proclaim : no, money-grubbing is not the ultimate stage of the world, no, the acknowledgement has not taken place despite Mr Fukuyama's pink outfit, yes, the discussion is continuing, yes, we must question everything that is questionable. It is also an aesthetic success (Even Meddeb, the nice, well-integrated Arab, agrees) an artistic manifesto as Stockhausen rightly pointed out. Flaubert relates atrocities in a perfectly accurate style, the fanatical Arabs carry out atrocities in a perfectly accurate style. Flaubert and these Arabs deal with the same hopeless world. The beauty lies in the style, not in the object narrated or the crime committed.

— I suppose André Breton would have appreciated the masterpiece of black humour by the crew members who were to die and who, the night before the event, got drunk in a bar in Jersey City, being very loud, making a row, refusing to pay for their drinks then exclaiming : « we don't care, we've got loads of money, we're American Airlines pilots." —

This amazing uninstallation, this great performance, closes the book on all the arty types who have been swarming (and talking on and on and on on the radio) over the corpse of dada, a corpse that reeks even more than those at Ground Zero. Those are towers the scum Christo will not be able to wrap. Bin Laden will leave a greater mark in New York and the whole world than Duchamp ever did. He proves it was still possible to take the art of rottenness and rotten people even further than rotten people themselves thought was possible. This time, as it says on the poster, the artist commits suicide on stage. The audience gets more than it bargained for. What is it complaining about?

— The mayor of Youpiville (Yuppytown), a cheeky nihilist (he regards his vulgar needs as cosmic and metaphysical issues and, above all, he claims to make us benefit from them), great guru of sinister events, i.e. left-wing events, is always seeking « the real pleasure », which can be a risky business. The cheeky fellow has had the retribution for his cheekiness: boredom, frivolity and disturbance of the peace at night... let petty thieves lie. The weapon of criticism cannot replace the criticisms meted out by weapons, can they?

Today Nihilists and their pride go roller skating while modest fanatics learn to pilot planes. Nihilism : denial of every value, doctrine rejecting the existence of any absolute, often in the belief that moral values have no foundation and that life is meaningless. Believing that life is meaningless! But it is not simply a doctrine, this world not only believes life is meaningless but also uses moral values to reach its immoral goals as Engels already emphasised. This commercial world is nihilism come true, nihilism turned into a world, the generalisation of commercial nihilism, i.e. the generalisation of the poverty of life, extended to the whole world. And a fanatical believer is everything but a nihilist. On the contrary, he constantly seeks to annihilate nihilism, to annihilate what believes life is meaningless, to annihilate what uses moral values to immoral ends, what invokes the name of God, democracy and freedom to grub some money. The fanatical Arabs counter this permanent crime against the spirit by indiscriminately assassinating a mass of impious free prostitutes in the name of their vengeful and vindictive God. They do not want to become Americans, they do not want to go roller skating, they do not want to go to Paris plage (Youpi plage, in fact. There are no innocents in Youpi plage. Youpiville is the head of world roller skating and protesting queerness), or only by plane, they do not want to benefit from the civilisation of the complacent bourgeois Revel. They are such party poopers! The real civil religion in the United States is trade, nothing but trade which should not be confused with democracy; trade is the hypocritical negation of it and fortunately this is becoming increasingly conspicuous. Bourgeois values, not the ones they invoke, their actual values are well-known : making money and cholesterol (double benefit for Homais the apothecary), everything else is sheer hypocrisy and propaganda. Same old Buddenbrooks.

Summary, again : amidst all this praise, amidst all this self-congratulation, amidst all this justification, amidst all these tall stories, amidst all this tomfoolery, amidst all these pats on the back, amidst all these Pompidou des sous, amidst all this self-satisfaction, amidst all these certainties, amidst all this gibberish, amidst so many TV statements, amidst so much charity business, amidst so much antiglobalist business, amidst all this apologetic critical propaganda, it happened last summer, this world, not only America was declared evil, with such means and in such a manner that no one could even pretend to ignore it. With bin Laden and Omar on the run the world will return to its peaceful obscurantism. The citizen cattle will be able to graze peacefully again. Bush is the embodiment of obscurantism, he is the supreme guardian and the protector of obscurantism and even obscurity (do you grasp the nuance?) and the leftists at Porto Alegre are about to eat transgenic grains out of his hand (from pseudo-rebellion to real collaboration, their show only lasted one summer. Thank you again, BL without an H, things are getting clearer. People finally take sides. Courrier international, January 12 2002 : on a Swedish radio, Susan George apologises

— as is customary in this clique. And now the fat moron with a moustache Bové has followed suit and also apologised for making pro-Palestinian remarks —

and thanks G. Bush for his forceful course of action in Afghanistan. Those rebellious money-grubbers do not waste any time, do they?) According to Olivier Roy, bin Laden made the mistake of committing an unacceptable act, even to Muslims (le Monde September 14 2001). We are overwhelmed by acceptable acts. It is precisely unacceptable acts that count. Otherwise you are just a voice crying in the wilderness. Some people only understand force, especially those who are used to systematically resorting to it, like the United States have been in the past two centuries. Myths teach us that the founding acts were acts so unacceptable that they are still remembered today. You kill your father, you screw your mother, you put out your eyes and so on and so forth. The age of heroes has returned. Down with money-grubbing! The force of this act and the success of bin Laden lie in its unacceptability in a world of generalised acceptance. Only an unquestionably evil act can condemn an evil world because it is this evil world which has produced it, not only in general, as described earlier here, but also in particular : these fanatical and bold men, enduring, real Bedouins, were recruited, financed, trained and armed for their fanaticism and determination by the cynical and clear-sighted CIA which did there what it was used to doing all over the world. That was one time too many. Ce fut une fois de trop(10). Back to sender, unknown address. Good old Lenin, they did not supply the rope but the dynamite! The wise guys at the CIA could not think for a second that those savages from the desert, too busy buggering their dromedaries, were blessed with free will, a strategic mind and, even better, a certain unpredictability which is usually called freedom or creation, they could not think that, instead of the usual corrupt proconsuls, they were honest men as Cicero was in his province. It is the exception that proves the rule. Just to make things worse, they all have university degrees and a fervent ideal. First these men declared the Russian world evil and went on to declare the Anglo-Saxon world evil. Ungrateful beggars. Who else could do it with such force today? Among so many questionable, hypocritically and deceitfully evil acts which array themselves in the rags of morality, one unquestionably evil, open act finally stands out. This obnoxious world of acceptance and real happiness can only be denounced by an unacceptable act. Only an act of this nature could reveal the plague of this world. Only faith, whatever it may be, can reveal nihilism. Only faith is suited to this purpose. If it is a bitter pill to swallow, who is to blame?

Conclusion. On the night of September 11, I thought : the world is under attack and not America is under attack. That is why I drank champagne on the night of September 11. I already knew as much on September 11. However it has not been easy to say it, i.e. to know it effectively. There is many a slip twixt cup and lip. There is many a slip twixt feeling and idea. That is why I say : although all that is said is not an idea (far from it, alas) only what can be said is an idea ; and although all that is said is not knowledge only what can be said is knowledge.

Che vuoi ? the frightening camel in The devil in love (Cazotte, 1772) asks. Rise quickly, craved storms!

Salam aleikum.


J.-P. Voyer



1. Le bonjour du Dr Mossadegh
 • www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953cp.html
2. Marx. Discours sur le libre échange
 • perso.club-internet.fr/leuven/disco01.htm
3. Arendt. Signification de la philosophie de Hobbes
 • perso.wanadoo.fr/denis.collin/de_hobbes.htm
4. Luxembourg. Cours d'économie politique
 • www.marxists.org/archive/noneng/francais/luxembur/intro_ecopo/intro_ecopo_11.htm
5. Les soixante gens bons. Lettre d'Amérique
• www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--262755-,00.html
  Réponse de cent vingt-huit intellectuels américains
 • www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--270076-,00.html
6. Département d'Etat US
 • usinfo.state.gov/francais/terrornet/03.htm
7. Arno. Le premier amendement de la constitution américaine
 • www.uzine.net/article48.html
8. Fouchereau. Les sectes, cheval de Troie des Etats-Unis en Europe
 • www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/05/FOUCHEREAU/15215.html
9. Emeriau, Motoyasu. Qu'est-ce que l'acier damas ?
 • acier.damas.free.fr/f_damas/quest.htm
10. Olivier Roy. Une fois de trop
 • www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/10/ROY/11134
11. Jacques Julliard. Merci Ben Laden
 • www.nouvelobs.com\evenement\evt9.html


M. Ripley s'amuse